House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
A free trade agreement with the US could deliver a £15 billion increase in bilateral trade, increase manufacturing output and benefit all parts of the UK economy, particularly the midlands, Scotland and the north-east.
Aaron Bell
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and for the scale of the Government’s ambitions for the trade deal. In Newcastle-under-Lyme we have a number of firms that have US subsidiaries or sister companies, or that themselves have US parent companies. Can she confirm that a comprehensive UK-US trade deal would benefit such firms by cutting red tape and increasing the trading ties between our two countries?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; every morning more than 1 million people in Britain get up and go to work for American firms, and more than 1 million people in the US go to work for British firms. We want a closer economic relationship so that we can share ideas, products and goods, to the benefit of both nations.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State told us on Monday that ceramics factories in the UK could benefit from a US trade deal, but that is not the view of the British Ceramic Confederation, which has warned of the dangers that low-quality ceramics would have on UK industry. Does she not accept that the manufacturing industry is right to be concerned about the threat posed by the agreement she is proposing?
Elizabeth Truss
Laura Cohen, of the British Ceramic Confederation, has said:
“A USA trade agreement could help our sector. For example, there are high tariffs on ceramic catering-ware imports…and without this barrier our exports to the USA could grow.”
Of course we will take action through the Trade Remedies Authority to deal with the illegal dumping of ceramic products on the UK market, but it is simply wrong to say that the ceramics industry would not benefit from a US trade deal.
Bill Esterson
But Laura Cohen is not talking about the type of trade deal that the Government are proposing, is she? The BCC has warned of the dangers of the Government’s proposed mutual recognition clauses, which is where the flood of low-quality imports would come from. The Secretary of State’s own scoping assessment says nothing about the impact of cheap US imports on UK manufacturing either, so why will she not listen to the industry? Should the Government not rethink their approach to the US agreement and look after our own excellent manufacturing sector, rather than pursuing a policy of “America First”?
Elizabeth Truss
I find this pretty ludicrous. The hon. Gentleman will have seen in the scoping assessment that virtually every sector of the UK economy, including manufacturing and agriculture, will benefit from a US trade deal. Steelite International, a fantastic company that I visited recently in Stoke-on-Trent, has also welcomed the potential removal of tariffs on its products—up to 28% on dinnerware—which it says will help it expand its operations.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State please comment on some of the parts of her proposals that are likely to benefit manufacturing and high-tech companies in west Oxfordshire and enable them to export their goods to the United States?
Elizabeth Truss
One of the points that we laid out in our negotiation objectives is that we want to achieve an advanced digital and data chapter. Currently, 79% of all our services are provided remotely. A digital and data chapter will give us the ability to underwrite those transactions and do more electronically, which will provide huge benefits to those high-tech industries in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
All this debate between the Secretary of State and Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson shows how important it will be to scrutinise the small print of the deal, so will she allow this Parliament a vote on the deal, such as the kind that the US Congress will get, or does she think that America deserves more democratic scrutiny of the deal than the United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
We have a parliamentary system in this country, so for these types of decisions the treaties are laid before Parliament through the CRAG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—process. I point out to the hon. and learned Lady that we also have an extensive programme of engagement with business. We have 17 expert trade advisory groups, through which we will ask business for their specific feedback to ensure that we are not lowering standards, and to ensure that we have the right standards for our industry. That is the consultation process that we are undertaking.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
UK goods exports were up 6.4% last year to a record £372 billion. Interestingly, the three fastest growing UK goods exports in 2019 were: one, unspecified goods; two, works of art; and three, jewellery.
Mr Hollobone
Are UK goods exports growing quicker to EU countries or to non-EU countries?
Graham Stuart
In 2019, goods exports to the EU were down by 0.9% to £170.6 billion, while goods exports to the non-EU were up by 13.6% to £201.5 billion.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)
The United Kingdom has published its approach to negotiations with the European Union, and the first round of talks is already under way. The United Kingdom is looking for a free trade agreement with the European Union based on EU precedent. Whatever the outcome of the talks led by David Frost and “Taskforce Europe,” this year we will recover our political and economic independence in full.
Sarah Olney
The question was about whether the Government are seeking to agree what they call an Australia-style deal between the EU and the UK. Given that there is no deal between Australia and the EU, can the Government confirm whether they are happy to accept a no deal between the UK and the EU?
Conor Burns
We already have a deal with the EU that the Prime Minister secured last year. The question now is whether we can secure a free trade agreement with the EU. We seek a Canada-style deal, but Australia trades perfectly effectively through a number of side deals with the EU. Whatever happens, we are going to deliver on the referendum result, fully leave the European Union and provide British business and the British people with the opportunities of global free trade.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that, under what the Government euphemistically call this Australia-style trade agreement, all the bilateral investment agreements we have with EU states, which were suspended while we were a member of the EU, will come back into force? What assessment has he made of the likely dispute proceedings that investors from those countries could launch and of the impact that would have on UK trade?
Conor Burns
The shadow Secretary of State may be moderately confused about our purpose here today, as this is questions to the Department for International Trade. As he is well aware, the European Union negotiations are handled by the Cabinet Office, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and David Frost, reporting to the Prime Minister.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What progress has been made in laying the groundwork for a UK-Australia free trade agreement? Is a timetable in place for the commencement of those negotiations?
Conor Burns
This week we have published the proposals for the United States deal, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is ably leading on Australia, Canada, Japan and, potentially, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. She will come to the House in due course, hopefully soon, to lay out full proposals for the terms of those negotiations[Official Report, 9 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 2MC.].
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Ghana and other parts of west Africa, I am delighted to be meeting a delegation this afternoon to talk about our expertise in science and technology and how we can help to support development in those countries. Does the Minister agree that, as we look out to the rest of the world post Brexit, it is trade with developing nations that will deliver the jobs, prosperity and mutual benefit we seek?
Conor Burns
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He does an excellent job, for which I thank him, as trade envoy to Ghana. We see enormous potential for development and people’s life chances, particularly on the continent of Africa, in free trade between us and Africa, and around the world. Free trade is the route to prosperity, and it is the route to lift people out of poverty. This Government will always champion it for the most deprived people in the world.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister has just mentioned the Department’s economic impact assessments on future trade deals with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and a CPTPP-type deal, but he will understand that a CETA-type deal—a Canada-style deal with Europe—will hit our economy by 6.2%. To what extent does he believe that the trade deals done with Japan, Australia, New Zealand and so on will compensate for that huge loss to our economy?
Conor Burns
We do not see these things as mutually exclusive. We are now going to be an independent sovereign nation, seeking free trade agreements around the world, liberating British business, with the opportunity to tap in to some of the fastest-growing economies around the world. We want a good deal with the EU and with partners around the world, to the mutual benefit and prosperity of all our citizens.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Winning further foreign direct investment is crucial to the delivery of rising living standards and the levelling up of left-behind communities up and down the land. Companies such as Ferrero, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), which exports wonderful, quality chocolate all over the world, will potentially benefit, as will other UK chocolate producers, as a result of our UK-US free trade agreement.
Nigel Mills
I thank the Minister for that answer, and I join him in valuing the investment that Ferrero has brought to the old Thorntons factory. Most of the large employers in my constituency have had FDI at some point or other in their history, so what more can the Government do to ensure that that investment is spread out evenly across the country, and is not just focused in London and the south-east?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because FDI is so important to the UK. Foreign-owned firms represent only 1% of businesses, yet they contribute 22% of economic output and deliver 15% of employment. My Department uses our regional teams right around the country, and in 110 countries around the world, to make sure that we get that message out. Only yesterday, I hosted a meeting with regional leaders from right across the UK at No. 10 to show the importance we attach, as my hon. Friend does, to sharing these FDI benefits right across the country.
Elliot Colburn
Does the Minister agree with me and with residents of Carshalton and Wallington that instead of talking down London, as the current Mayor does, we should be supporting Shaun Bailey’s idea to put in a deputy Mayor for trade to make sure that London remains a destination with one of the highest levels of FDI in the world, to attract businesses and entrepreneurs?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I think the people of London want a Mayor who makes things happen, who is a champion of business and who recognises that, for all the wealth in London, there are too many people left behind. We need a Mayor who gets on with the job—one who does not act like a commentator but who actually acts like a leader.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. Friend agree that free ports will help to attract significant foreign investment, and regenerate and create jobs in some of our communities and deprived areas?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, on which he is right. He is constantly championing the interests of his area, not least because of the need for regeneration. Free ports offer that opportunity. We are in constant talks with The Bristol Port Company, and I know that he is working closely with the West of England Mayor to make sure that that regeneration and the benefits of FDI are brought to his part of the country, with all the prosperity and employment benefits that that will bring.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the concerns of businesses and, in particular, of producers supporting our regional economies about the impact of the proposed most favoured nation tariffs on their capacity to attract investment in new technology that is essential for our transition to net zero. What assessment has he made of the impact of the proposed measures on the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for investment, particularly in new green technology?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The consultation closes tonight and we are determined to get the right balance. We are clear that we are going to have a tariff regime that benefits UK consumers and business, and allows us to align ourselves most effectively to where 90% of global growth is expected by the International Monetary Fund to be in the next five years or so, which is outside Europe.
Judith Cummins
I thank the Minister for that answer, but he is not addressing the specific concern that the tariff schedule could hurt domestic producers by stifling FDI in precisely the places in the country that need it most. Are the Government really going to ignore industry concerns, potentially costing jobs?
Graham Stuart
I would have hoped that, after sufficient time in the House, the hon. Lady might have understood how a consultation worked. The consultation closes today, and I cannot comment on a consultation that has not yet closed. What I can tell her is that, as she will be delighted to hear, under this Government the UK has attracted more FDI than any other country in Europe. Indeed, we have attracted more FDI in aggregate than Germany and France combined. If she and her colleagues on the Labour Front Bench were to support business and enterprise in the way we do, instead of opposing them, we might see more jobs and prosperity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
With Northern Ireland being recognised as the cyber-security capital of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to highlight this massive international market?
Graham Stuart
As I said in an earlier answer, I was pleased to meet Northern Ireland representatives in No. 10 Downing Street yesterday. When I visited Belfast last year, I learnt more about the phenomenal tech, and in particular cyber, capability there is in Belfast. The Department is determined to make sure that the message of how investable and how strong Northern Ireland is, and what great capability it has, is understood through all our posts in countries around the world.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
There has been a huge amount of foreign direct investment in the financial services sector, not only in London but throughout the regions and in Scotland. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, in all free trade negotiations, the interests of the financial services sector will be protected?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend, who characteristically puts her finger on an important point. Services have too often not had sufficient focus in trade agreements. We are very much looking to put financial services, data and other elements at the heart of our trade policy, which will be great for the City of London. However, it is important to note that there are more people working in financial services in the northern powerhouse than there are in the whole of Frankfurt.
Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
We are working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to maximise the overall economic impact of our world-leading renewable energy sector, including that of exports. The Department undertakes a range of promotion activities, including running trade missions and dedicated workshops.
Graham Stuart
All investments by the prosperity fund are examined against the raft of UK Government policies, objectives and aims, and we do that in all cases in each continent of the world.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As the Minister is aware, the Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituencies are major centres for the renewables sector. Many of the smaller businesses are vital parts of the supply chain, and they would like to get more involved in exports. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the local industry to explore the possibilities?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that the offshore wind sector deal, published in March 2019, sets an ambition of increasing exports fivefold to £2.6 billion by 2030. He and I, in our respective constituencies, have seen the transformation of the economics of offshore wind. We are now seeing UK Export Finance, for instance, financing major investments in Taiwan and other parts of the world, with UK exports and UK expertise, not least from my hon. Friend’s constituency, at the heart of that. I would be delighted to meet him.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Graham Stuart
The Government are investing £2.5 billion in clean growth innovation by 2021, as set out in the industrial strategy. The offshore wind sector deal commits the sector to investing up to £250 million, building a stronger UK supply chain. It is a transition—a transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner technologies—and we intend to drive that ever faster.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Foreign investment in film and TV is booming. Just last month, I met representatives of the US’s Blackhall Studios, and they unveiled plans for a major investment in conjunction with Reading University, which should bring £500 million a year in inward investment to the UK. That studio alone is expected to employ 3,000 people and further strengthen the UK industry as a creative and economic triumph.
Mark Logan
As everyone knows, Bolton is the new Hollywood. Having appeared in the Netflix show “The Stranger” and in “Top Gear”, which is filming in town today, Bolton has generated more than £200,000 in the past 12 months from being used as a film location. Will the Minister give an indication as to how a US-UK trade deal will benefit Bolton’s creative industries and cement our place as the newest leading media centre in the UK?
Graham Stuart
Smoothing access to the US through an FTA will help Bolton, and having such an excellent and film-ready advocate for Bolton as my hon. Friend, I look forward to him appearing, perhaps even with a speaking role, in future productions. It is notable that, in the past two years alone, we have seen the BBC, Netflix and Sky all using Bolton as locations for major productions, including “Peaky Blinders”, which I can certainly see him in; the “Last Tango in Halifax”, where he may be a younger love interest; “The Stranger”, although I know he never tries to be; and “Cobra”, which perhaps suggests his action credentials.
Mr Speaker
The famous film “Spring and Port Wine” was also filmed in Bolton.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, you should also know that the filming of the new Batman movie has been happening in my constituency in Glasgow.
Is it still the intention of the UK Government not to implement the EU copyright directive because of Brexit? If so, what analysis have they done on what impact that will have on foreign direct investment in film and the creative industries?
Graham Stuart
Now that we have departed the EU, we are determined to ensure that we remain the leading production hub globally, as we increasingly have been in film, not least thanks to the skill, expertise and beauty of the people and the places, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Japan is the third largest economy in the world and a key partner of the UK. I visited Japan in September to promote UK trade and we are shortly likely to commence our free trade negotiations with it.
Tom Randall
London 2012 offered an opportunity not only for Britain to showcase itself to the world, but for the competing nations to showcase themselves to the host nation. May I ask what steps the Department is taking to promote Great Britain at the forthcoming Olympic and Paralympic games in Tokyo?
Elizabeth Truss
I understand that Japan will be using a lot of British-made products in the Olympics, for example, the white water obstacles made by UK company RapidBlocs. During Tokyo 2020, we will be hosting a series of promotional events, and I look forward to Team GB celebrating its success with Scotch whisky and English sparkling wine.
Mr Holden
Nissan is very important to the north-east and employs hundreds directly in my constituency and hundreds more via the supply chain. What further benefits will a new free trade agreement with Japan, which is currently being pursued by the Government, bring to manufacturers and suppliers in my constituency?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nissan’s Sunderland plant is the most productive in Europe, and I can see every reason why the Japanese are likely to put even more investment there and make more cars there. There are opportunities through the Japan FTA and the US FTA where Nissan already exports from its UK factory.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Should not the Secretary of State be looking at the way in which we source things in this country—whether from Japan or China. We know that many of the drugs that we need to fight this virus are actually made in India, and it is not allowing us to have a full complement of imports. We also know that firms all over our country are closing down because China is the workshop of the world and it is exporting nothing. What is she going to do in the future to secure those supply chains?
Elizabeth Truss
First, we are participating in the efforts to tackle coronavirus through the cross-Government working group. The Prime Minister chaired a Cobra meeting on Monday to make sure that we are dealing with those supply chain issues. Furthermore, I expect the Trade Remedies Authority to play a strong role in making sure that we do not see the dumping of products on the UK market.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Some 30,000 small and medium-sized enterprises already trade with the United States. In the new free trade agreement, we will be asking for a dedicated SME chapter that removes customs red tape, does more stuff online and makes it much easier for our fantastic small businesses to trade with the United States.
Katherine Fletcher
Many businesses in South Ribble stand to benefit hugely from a free trade agreement with the USA—not least Leyland Exports, a commercial vehicle and silicone hose specialist. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must push hard to secure a free trade deal that benefits businesses of all sizes in all regions, and supports supply chains?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. I understand that Leyland Exports can face up to 25% tariffs on the export of goods vehicles to the United States, and 5% tariffs on its exports to Australia. In the free trade agreements we are looking for from the United States and Australia, one of our key asks will be to get rid of those tariffs, and to make it much easier for the car industry—by reducing testing and red tape—to ensure that we can get our fantastic exports into those markets.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Greg Hands)
We are using the transition period to ensure that the UK rises to the challenges of leaving the European Union while being ready to take advantage of all the benefits. Work on ports preparedness is being led by the Cabinet Office’s border delivery group. I remind the House and onlookers that tonight is the closure of our consultation on the new UK global tariff.
Mary Glindon
Can the Minister ensure that virtual free ports will be considered during the free ports bidding process, so that we can protect existing jobs in the north-east as well as creating new ones?
Greg Hands
The hon. Member makes an extremely good point, and that is one of the points of the free port policy. We launched the consultation last month with the Command Paper, and it closes on 20 April. It would not be proper for me to make comments specifically about the location of future free ports, but the Tyne port in particular is very important to this country, as it is the second largest vehicle port in the nation. Free ports are designed to support jobs, trade and investment.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Greg Hands)
An ambitious United States free trade agreement could boost the economy in the south-east, including the Thames valley, by £622 million in the long run, supporting the growth of key local industries such as professional business services, and automotive and digital businesses. The FTA presents a golden opportunity for the region, which has a thriving trade with America, with the equivalent of £14,000 of goods exported to the US every minute.
Greg Smith
The Thames valley is home to many high- tech businesses, not least in the north of my constituency of Buckingham crossing into Northamptonshire at Silverstone Park. Can my right hon. Friend outline the steps he is taking to ensure that we are supporting high-tech businesses at places such as Silverstone Park to grow, prosper and bring global solutions in areas such as low-carbon transport, and that they are at the forefront of our negotiations for a free trade deal with the United States?
Greg Hands
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend yet again on being a brilliant new representative for the Buckingham constituency? The Silverstone technology cluster includes excellent tech and start-up companies such as Advanced Automotive Technologies, Altair Engineering, room44 e-bikes and many more. Those are exactly the kind of companies that we want to see exporting more to the USA and to benefit from fewer hurdles to trade. That is why both sides want an SME chapter in the trade deal.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Government’s own figures show that a US trade deal could raise the north-east’s economy by a maximum of 0.4% a year and that a no-deal Brexit will cut the north-east’s economy by up to 10%. Is this the Government’s idea of levelling up—to destroy thousands of jobs in the north-east?
Greg Hands
The hon. Member does not do this question justice. Our objective, of course, is to have both a very good free trade deal with the European Union and a new trade deal with the United States of America, which would have the potential to raise the gross value added of the north-eastern region by some £170 million. She should join us, work with us and ensure that the benefits of these deals can be heard by all her constituents across the region.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We are a world leader in tech. Following our departure from the European Union, we have launched a new GREAT campaign that promotes everything from our agri-tech to our gaming capabilities. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), recently led a delegation to Las Vegas where he promoted UK tech at the Consumer Electronics Show.
Saqib Bhatti
To meet the challenges of our time, we must ensure that we create an environment where we encourage tech start-ups to set up, thrive and innovate. What are the Secretary of State and Ministers doing to ensure that tech start-ups in the west midlands are able to fulfil their potential?
Elizabeth Truss
Birmingham has the largest tech sector outside London. It has firms specialising in FinTech, games, health-tech and cyber-security. We will keep the UK at the top of the investment tree. Last year we saw investment in UK tech growing faster than in any other nation in the world. We need to keep at the forefront, and there are huge opportunities for our tech industry.
Gagan Mohindra
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in celebrating the fact that last year investment into the UK’s tech start-ups grew more than anywhere else in the world? Will she outline the steps she is taking to build on this fantastic achievement?
Elizabeth Truss
After we have left the European Union, we have a huge opportunity to strike new data and digital agreements with the rest of the world. We are looking for a data and digital chapter in the US FTA. We are looking for an advanced data and digital chapter with Japan. We have the opportunity to create a global powerhouse here in the UK.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State said, the UK is a world leader in future technology, yet it is also assessed to be one of the sectors most at risk from Brexit. Therefore, new opportunities for tech sector start-ups are absolutely important. The Department was recently criticised by tech sector magazines for cutting funding for the tradeshow access programme, which is used by entrepreneurs in the tech sector to get to potential clients overseas. So will she set out what funding will be available, and with what long-term guarantees for those SMEs and start-ups, so that they can make the best of opportunities through the TAP?
Elizabeth Truss
I disagree with the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to set our own rules and regulations in tech, and really lead the world in areas like artificial intelligence and blockchain. That is exactly what we are seeking to do with these new free trade agreements. We are also seeking, at the World Trade Organisation, to lead in areas like the joint statement on e-commerce, and looking for new SME-friendly chapters in our trade deals to help exactly these types of tech start-ups to sell their goods around the world.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)
As we said earlier, only this week we have launched our negotiating platform for a free trade agreement with the United States. Those for Australia, New Zealand and Japan will follow in due course, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set those out. My role within the Department is to support her in scoping out and assessing the potential for future free trade agreements around the rest of the world.
Dr Huq
In reality, the roll-over deals struck to date amount to just 8% of our existing total trade, yet we were told that all this would be sorted by one minute past midnight on 31 March last year. Are the US negotiations being conducted in tandem with the EU ones, with fully trained teams aware of what each other is doing so that that can be factored into any future relationship? I am sure that other countries will be thinking the same, particularly as our objectives seem to be so divergent from the US’s “America first” aims?
Conor Burns
I understand that the hon. Lady attended a briefing yesterday on the negotiations, led by our brilliant chief negotiator. She asks whether we are pursuing concurrent trade negotiations with the EU and the United States. The answer is yes we are, in exactly the same way that the EU is currently negotiating with the United States.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Further to that question and to the question asked by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I want to be absolutely clear about one thing: there is no such thing as an Australian free trade deal with the EU. An Australia-terms Brexit is actually a no-deal Brexit, and no amount of spin or repackaging can hide that fact. Does the Minister think that no deal is an acceptable outcome, given the near apocalyptic conclusions of his own Government’s Yellowhammer report, which talked about two and a half day waits at ports for lorries? Is that acceptable?
Conor Burns
A free trade agreement with the European Union is our ambition, and we hope that it shares that ambition. Our ambition is also to engage in free trade negotiations, which the Secretary of State is leading on, with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan in the first instance. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and sceptics on the Opposition Benches that the interest in the opportunities for the United Kingdom to engage bilaterally around the world, now that we control our own independent trade policy for the first time in almost 50 years, is almost unquenchable—I think of the conversations we have had in the last six months with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, Morocco, Algeria and Commonwealth Trade Ministers. I just hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will welcome the opportunities that we are giving them to trade with the world and enjoy ever increasing prosperity.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Is the collective mind of Government concentrated on ensuring that these deals are shared across the entirety of the United Kingdom?
Conor Burns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The answer is unequivocally yes. We are determined that the entire United Kingdom—all nations and every region of it—will benefit, and I had the pleasure of returning home to Northern Ireland only a couple of weeks ago to talk about those ambitions with the Executive and businesses in Northern Ireland.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
UK exports are at a record high, with the latest figures showing exports of £689 billion—up 5% on 2018. We are committed to doing even more, building on the measures in our export strategy. Just last month, we launched a new business support campaign, helping businesses of all sizes to fulfil their exporting potential.
Sam Tarry
Over the last few weeks, the good residents of Ilford South have been writing to me in greater and greater numbers because they are concerned about the sectarian violence we are seeing in some of our Commonwealth partners in certain regions of the world. Can the Minister reassure me and the residents of Ilford South by telling us what steps he will take to ensure that the Government’s trade strategy always promotes human rights abroad and does not embolden or reward regimes or Governments who oppress communities that are a minority in number?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the issue of trade’s role in parts of the world where human rights are being breached. Right across the Department, we seek to ensure that all such considerations are taken into account, while recognising the need to engage with regimes that may have less than perfect Governments, for the benefit of the people there. It is a balance that we take very seriously, and I look forward to further discussion with him to get it right.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There are lessons for our strategy arising from Japan’s rather unsatisfactory negotiations with the EU, are there not?
Graham Stuart
We could look at Japan, or we could look at Mercosur, which took 20 years of negotiation. Some say that the UK shorn of the heft of the EU will be less able to do deals. There are ways in which that would be true, but fundamentally, with agility, as many countries have shown, we can do more deals more quickly and, most importantly, bring greater prosperity, employment and opportunity to my right hon. Friend’s constituents and mine as a result of the UK having its own independent trade policy for the first time in 40-odd years.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Following our departure from the EU, the UK has established itself as an independent trading nation. On Tuesday, I was the first UK Trade Secretary in almost 50 years to make a speech at the World Trade Organisation representing the UK as an independent trading nation. We will use our position at the WTO to champion free trade, champion reform and make the case for liberalisation in digital and services. Mr Speaker, I can tell you that Britain is back.
Steve Double
The British Egg Industry Council recently commissioned a report on the impact that changes to import tariffs would have on UK egg producers. The report particularly highlighted concerns about cutting import tariffs on egg products when they come from countries with much lower welfare standards. How does my right hon. Friend plan to protect the good eggs, such as St Ewe Free Range Eggs in my constituency, which produces the finest free range eggs money can buy, against the bad eggs from countries with lower welfare standards?
Elizabeth Truss
The consultation on the UK global tariff, which will set the most favoured nation tariff rate for eggs, among other products, closes tonight, so I suggest that my hon. Friend gets the eggs-cellent company in his constituency to put in a submission to the consultation and make its views known.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be familiar with the Brexit voucher scheme that has been launched by the Irish Government to support small and medium-sized enterprises trading across borders and affected by Brexit. The Dutch have introduced a similar scheme paying grants of over €2,000 and loans of up to €1.5 million. What assessment has she made of those measures and whether they are compliant with state aid rules, and if they are, why has she not introduced any similar measures to support our own SMEs, which face unknown tariffs, increased checks and inspections, and substantial delays to their trade?
Elizabeth Truss
We are working very closely with the Cabinet Office to make sure that businesses have all the information they need to prepare for transition at the end of this year. This is also an opportunity, of course, to get more businesses trading with the rest of the world, and we will be saying more about this soon in our new export strategy.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Greg Hands)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. When I was previously in this job, I visited the sector in Cambridgeshire. We know that the life sciences industry contributes £74 billion a year to the economy, creating 250,000 jobs and developing life-saving medicines for UK patients. Annually, the east of England exports £711 million of medical and pharmaceutical products to the US. Estimates show that a UK-US FTA could boost the whole region’s economy by £345 million in the long run.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress being made to ensure that the legal services trade between the UK and the European Union can be maintained after the end of this year?
Greg Hands
That is properly a question for a different Question Time, because it is Taskforce Europe that is responsible for our future trading relations with the European Union. What I can say to the hon. Member is that the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is one of the key aspects we are looking at in free trade agreements with counterparties across the world.
Stewart Hosie
I am glad that that is being looked at because, right now, if an agreement is not reached between the UK and the European Union, UK legal practitioners—lawyers—will no longer be protected by legal or professional privilege inside the European Union. May we have a specific focus on that to ensure that jeopardy is removed, but also, more importantly, to ensure that the associated disincentive to trade in legal services is removed?
Greg Hands
Again, this is really a matter for Taskforce Europe, but I will pass on the hon. Member’s question to it to give him a more detailed response. What I can say is that the DIT team promote trade in legal services, particularly the mutual recognition of qualifications, in all our talks. I have done that personally in this role, and the Secretary of State is committed to doing so. We make sure that this is promoted, particularly regulator to regulator, including for legal services, accountancy, architecture and all our professional services.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend has been lobbying extremely hard for Holyhead to be considered as a free port, and we are very grateful for all her input to the free port consultation. She is right, of course, that a US free trade deal will benefit every single part of the United Kingdom, including Wales. There are particular opportunities for the export of Welsh lamb into the United States, where it is currently not allowed. I also agree that we need to ensure—I know the Transport Secretary is working hard on this—that we continue to keep routes open and that new companies can operate those flight routes, which are so vital for our connectivity.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
I was very clear in the statement I made to the House that there had been problems with our process. I subsequently issued a written ministerial statement, followed by an internal review conducted by another Government Department.
We have now fixed that problem. The information is now being provided in real time, and that fulfils the requirements of the court order.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)
We strongly value our trading relationship with the state of Israel and are working closely with the Israeli Government to implement the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement, but my hon. Friend is absolutely correct to identify the opportunities for us to do so much more. In my constituency, the town of Bournemouth is twinned with Netanya in Israel, and I have seen first-hand the opportunities in the innovation and tech sectors. We are working with Israeli counterparts to host a UK-Israel trade and investment conference in London, whose primary focus will be scoping out and identifying new opportunities for collaboration between Israel and the United Kingdom.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady can see that laid out in black and white in our objectives: we simply will not do a deal that undermines our food safety standards, and we will also retain our very high animal welfare standards. That is very clear and, ultimately, if the US is not prepared to agree to that, we will walk away.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who sets an example—not least to the party over there, the SNP—in championing the interests of Scottish workers and Scottish business, regardless of politics. [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) laughs, but all too often she sits there and says—as she did just now, chuntering from a sedentary position—“We don’t want it”: she does not want more resource from the UK Government to support Scottish business. If ever we had an example of how the separatist SNP put that single agenda ahead of the interests of the Scottish people, that was it. Thank the Lord that we have Members like my right hon. Friend to stand up for us.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Elizabeth Truss
We are leaving the EU so that we can make our own regulatory decisions, including about how we manage our agriculture and horticulture. Of course we want to get the best possible free trade deal with the EU, but that does not mean continuously harmonising with its regulations.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The top source market of foreign direct investment projects coming into the UK continues to be the United States, by a considerable margin. Does that not underline the importance of Heathrow and of the transatlantic aviation route as an enabler of those deals? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to growth in that important market?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is correct to highlight the importance of Heathrow and transatlantic links with the US and beyond—not only for exports, but for foreign direct investment. I am sure that he and the rest of the House will be kept informed as Government policy develops.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Greg Hands
We are making extensive preparations at our ports to cater for all possible scenarios of outcome from the current talks with the European Union; we are very much following the philosophy of preparing for the worst but working for the best. We are making sure that, across Government, all the resources will be in place to deal with a whole range of eventualities as they may arise at the border.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Last weekend, worrying comments were reported in the Mail on Sunday questioning the need for UK farming and agriculture for our economy. This is at a time when farmers’ fields are saturated and they are lambing in really difficult conditions—they did not need that over their cornflakes on Sunday. Will my right hon. Friend give Stroud farmers and farmers across the UK confidence that the Government will stand up for them in all trade negotiations, and will she reconfirm their importance to our economy?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right: British farming is vital, for its food production, for its custodianship of the environment and for the enjoyment it provides in all our lives through its fantastic products. She will notice from the US negotiating objectives and scoping statement that agriculture will benefit, because there will be more opportunities to export our fantastic lamb and beef and we can cut tariffs on dairy products. There are lots of opportunities, and I want British farmers to take them up.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Unlike that Government aide, in the north-east we know that we do need farmers—not least because they protect our glorious Northumberland and County Durham countryside. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment to protecting the small-scale farmers and their high-welfare and farming standards in any trade deal?
Elizabeth Truss
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are developing new farming support policies to supersede the common agricultural policy. Those will be much more suited to British farmers, making sure that we are supporting farmers to protect the environment and produce great products. In our trade agreements I have been very clear that there will be no diminution in our standards.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Some of our closest friends and most productive trading relationships have always been in the Commonwealth, and it is time that this was reinvigorated. What are Ministers doing to explore Commonwealth free trade?
Elizabeth Truss
I hosted a meeting in London last year with the Commonwealth Trade Ministers. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm to work more closely together. One of our first priority trade deals will be with Australia and New Zealand. We are also creating a Commonwealth caucus at the World Trade Organisation. Commonwealth countries represent 33% of delegates to the WTO. We can be a real force in making the case for free trade and for small countries not to be overwhelmed by big trading blocs.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that food standards are upheld in future trade agreements, specifically to protect infant and child health?
Elizabeth Truss
We are very clear that in future trade agreements, we will maintain our food standards. We were clear about that in the US objectives and we will be clear about it in subsequent objectives.
Business of the House
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 9 March will include:
Monday 9 March—Second Reading of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on the Commonwealth in 2020.
Tuesday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, followed by a general debate on LGBT+ health inequality and LBT women’s health week. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 11 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 12 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 13 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 16 March will include:
Monday 16 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 17 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 18 March—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Thursday 19 March—Debate on a motion on Government response to the Morse review of the loan charge 2019, followed by a general debate on the Horizon settlement and future governance of Post Office Ltd. The subjects for these debates was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 March—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Is there any update on the list of ministerial responsibilities? He has given the business for the week of 16 March, but no departmental questions have been allocated. Will he say why that has not been forthcoming?
When will the Windrush lessons learned review and the report on Russian interference in UK democracy be published? The Leader of the House frequently says that the Prime Minister has seen it, but we are in a democracy—the last time I looked—and we would all like to have a look at that.
There is a debate in Westminster Hall today on Horizon. While this is an important topic, it will also be the subject of a Backbench Business Committee debate. I wonder whether there could be more co-ordination so that Members can contribute in the appropriate way.
We are all thinking about those who are suffering from the virus, covid-19. Can I ask for clarification through the Leader of the House from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? Last week, he said that people must self-isolate on medical advice and that they will be entitled to sick pay. This week, he said that people have to self-certify for seven days, yet the incubation period is 14 days. I know that the Prime Minister said that everyone who is entitled to sick pay can get it from day one, but what is the position of those who we, as a country, are asking to self-isolate—those on zero-hours contracts and those, for example, who are not entitled to statutory sick pay? We know that the virus does not distinguish between who is on what sort of contract, so will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an urgent statement that whoever self-certifies in relation to the disease can get statutory sick pay from day one? Universal credit is not payable for five weeks.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that covid-19 is now a notifiable disease? I know that many small businesses have been affected by this and we need to know that that is also retrospective. The Secretary of State for Health has said that there is no additional funding and that there is no ring-fenced funding for local authorities. Tory-controlled councils such as Walsall council are using £10 million for consultants to try to show councillors how to build resilient communities. Is that a proper use of public money, where councillors are asked to build these communities with Lego? That is all the more reason why the money for this disease should be ring-fenced. The way to build a resilient community is, of course, to restore Pleck library, which cost only £800,000, to restore Palfrey Sure Start, to ensure that youth centres are open and, of course, to fund social care, which is a very important part of keeping people safe. So could we have a reassurance from the Chancellor that the money is emergency money to mitigate covid-19?
The Leader of the House will know that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 contains all the powers that a Government need for emergency regulations, including under section 27, which allows parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the shadow Secretary of State have worked very closely together. Are there any plans for further emergency legislation? Will he ensure that the Opposition parties are consulted? After all, we want to do things in the best interests of our country.
Twenty-three Members of Parliament in Iran have got covid-19. The Leader of the House will know that the UK Government, France and Germany have shown good faith and given money through the UN to Iran to help support its health system. Our British citizens Nazanin, Anousheh and Kylie need to come back so that we can look after our own citizens. Will the Leader of the House reassure us that that is put to the Iranian Government, given that we have supported their health system?
I am sure, Mr Speaker, that the House will not mind if I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Bruce George, who sadly passed away last week. Bruce was born in 1942 in Mountain Ash, Glamorgan. He had a 36-year career here, and he made an important contribution to life in Walsall and this place. He was chair of the Defence Select Committee and played an important part in securing money from the previous Labour Government to rebuild the Manor Hospital. In recognition of his dedication to Walsall South, Bruce was made an honorary freeman of the borough. He was a keen football fan. Bruce was the founder, captain and goalkeeper of the parliamentary football team, the Westminster Wobblers. Bruce’s wife, Lisa, showed him tremendous support throughout the time that he was here and beyond, and I hope that the House will join me in sending our condolences to Lisa at this very difficult time. Bruce’s funeral will be on 20 March at Saint Matthew’s church at 1 o’clock. May he rest in peace.
We are celebrating International Women’s Day. We know that unpaid work that women do is worth £140 billion to the economy; the financial sector is worth £132 billion. Let us lead the way in unlocking women’s potential. Equal pay for equal work is just one area that we need to look at. Those high-profile cases are easy to see, but those other women down below also need to be encouraged. We need to support any claims for equal pay for equal work.
Finally, I wish everyone a happy World Book Day. We know that every child will get a £1 book token, but £1 books are available for adults as well. I pay tribute to our Library for the fantastic service that they provide us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I join the right hon. Lady in sending our condolences to Lisa George. It is always a sadness when a former Member of this House dies, but obviously the greatest sadness is for the family and, as the hon. Lady says, may he rest in peace.
I agree with the hon. Lady on paying tribute to the Library. We are enormously well served by the Library, and I hope everybody will use World Book Day as an opportunity to spend more time reading. They might want to read a book on the Victorians, which is still available in all good bookshops, probably at a highly discounted price by now.
I want to answer the important question on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Foreign Office officials in Tehran continue to lobby for the release of all dual national detainees, and I understand that the Iranian ambassador to the UK confirmed on Tuesday that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was in good health and that she would be granted temporary release, so there is some slight good news at this stage. However, her family have understandably said that they wish to keep her symptoms under review and undertake any further testing as necessary. I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Lady for raising this every week.
Inevitably, given that a reshuffle took place relatively recently, the list of ministerial responsibilities is being worked on, and will be released as soon as practicable. The list of oral questions is also being worked on because of changes in departmental responsibilities. It is important that we have the right questions to allow the Government to be held to account properly.
As far as I am aware, the Windrush report has not yet been delivered to the Home Office, but I am sure that the Home Office will review it in the normal way once it has been. The right hon. Lady also asked about the Russia report. The Committee has not yet been set up, but I have no doubt that when it has been, it will rush to publish the report. However, I remind her that the Prime Minister has said that it will probably be much less exciting than people think it will be. The joy of waiting for it is, perhaps, greater than the reality of what it will contain—not that I have seen it.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the Post Office and Horizon. I am glad to say that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is to conduct a parliamentary investigation into this very troubling matter, and I think that that is the right way to go about it. Parliamentary Select Committee inquiries can be very swift and effective.
The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the coronavirus. There are some very important points to make in relation to people outside the House, and also to people inside it. On sick pay, the right hon. Lady is right: people can self-certify for seven days, but the Government are asking businesses in these circumstances to use the discretion that they have not to require a doctor’s note for the second seven days. I think most businesses will understand that. I also think it is worth giving reassurance to people who may be eligible for sick pay about its availability. As for those on zero-hours contracts, Citizens Advice recommends that they discuss the matter with their employers, because some of them may well be eligible for sick pay. So steps are being taken. There are eligibilities, and other benefits are available to people who are not eligible. It is important that the welfare system will be able to take care of people who self-isolate or who are suffering.
I am not going to dwell on the right hon. Lady’s disagreements with her local council. MPs often disagree with their local councils. As hers is a Conservative council, I am sure that it is absolutely marvellous, but I understand why a socialist Member of Parliament does not take the same view. That is a fairly routine aspect of political life. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the right hon. Lady.
Let me now turn to the issue of Parliament and the coronavirus. Many Members may have read a report in The Times today, and I want to reassure them that there are no plans to close the House down.
Mr Rees-Mogg
But it was one that represented many.
The public will expect Parliament to sit, and to get on with its job. Parliament has proved itself to be very resilient over the years. There is no medical reason, on current advice, to think that shutting Parliament would be necessary or helpful. I will repeat that: there is no medical reason, on current advice, to think that shutting Parliament would be necessary or helpful.
Our approach will be guided by the best scientific evidence and medical advice, and we will take all necessary measures to deal with this outbreak. I can assure the House that I am engaging with the parliamentary authorities to emphasise how important it is that any decisions are taken in line with the advice of the chief medical officer. A cross-parliamentary group of senior managers is meeting daily to plan the response to covid-19 and ensure business continuity, with input from Her Majesty’s Government. The Commission will consider an update at its meeting with the House of Lords Commission on Monday. I can reassure the House that we are taking this very seriously, and that we will act on professional medical advice.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
When the capital city had a Conservative Mayor, he cut crime. May we have a debate on why the current Labour Mayor is failing to get a grip on the worrying rise in serious violent crime in London?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this point. It is extraordinary how effective the previous Mayor of London was in cutting crime; it is no surprise that he has gone on to even greater things—and it is no surprise that his socialist successor has failed to cut crime. I am glad to say that this Government will provide an extra 20,000 police officers, and are reinforcing stop-and-search powers to ensure that crime can be reduced across the country.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
At a time when almost the entire country is focused on coronavirus and its implications, observers of our proceedings will find it strange that the matter does not appear on our agenda. Would it not be proper to have a discussion in the Chamber that gave the opportunity for more in-depth consideration than can be afforded by a series of 20-second questions to a Minister? I do not for one second suggest that we should try to second-guess the medical response to the virus—we should simply take the expert advice and make sure that the resources are available to implement it swiftly—but it is clear that there will be profound social and economic consequences from the virus that will require a public policy response from this Chamber. The sooner we start on that, the better.
I am thinking in particular of those companies that will be more affected by the virus than others. Obviously, there will be an effect on every company, but for some, particularly those producing public events, the difference will be between living and dying; the virus will potentially put them out of business. I am thinking of such events as the Edinburgh festival, which is important to not just the city but the entire Scottish and UK economy. Decisions on it are being taken now; the risks are being taken now. Those involved would take succour from Parliament deciding in principle, though perhaps not providing details, that support will be given to people engaged in these activities. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Leader of the House will know that on Monday, the House ran out of time to discuss a proposition from the Committee of Selection on the composition of the Scottish Affairs Committee—the rather bizarre proposal that the Conservative party’s representation on that Committee be increased, even though its representation in the country of Scotland as a whole reduced by 50% in the recent election. When will the House have the opportunity to conclude that debate, and when can we put amendments before the House to ensure that the composition of the Committee reflects political opinion in Scotland?
Mr Rees-Mogg
To answer the second part of the question first, it is of course very sad that the SNP decided to talk out the motion establishing a Scottish Affairs Committee. It is surprising that a party that calls itself the national party of Scotland does not want to have a Committee looking into Scottish affairs. The Government will of course deliberate and consider when it is right to bring forward a motion on the subject, but it is ironic that those who wish for more Scottish debate are those who decided not to have a Scottish Affairs Committee. I know a little bit, dare I say, about the procedures of this House, and I know when somebody is trying to talk something out, and that is exactly what happened. One might think, if it were not disorderly to suggest it, that the SNP were filibustering—to stop themselves having the opportunity to discuss things. It was a filibuster with remarkably little point.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are not playing “Just a Minute”; I am trying to answer serious questions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is absolutely right about discussions of coronavirus. The Health and Social Care Secretary is committed to updating the House regularly. I think that is important and the best way of proceeding, because we are trying to proceed on the basis of medical, expert advice, and giving Members the opportunity to ask questions, so that advice can be given to a broader audience and more widely understood, is the right approach to take, though I hear his request for a debate. Obviously, if or when there is a need for emergency legislation, there will be a full debate on it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Could I just say that I am expecting to run business questions until 11.15 am?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on violent crime, last year, in the London Borough of Harrow, the number of notifiable offences rose to 17,329, up from 14,897 the year before. Meanwhile, our do-nothing Mayor spends his money, which he is given by the Government, on public relations and spin doctors. He has been given £5 billion to build 116,000 new homes across the capital, and has failed to do that, and yesterday a third of tube trains were running late because of faulty trains. Could we have a debate on the failures of this do-nothing Mayor?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for the failure of the do-nothing Mayor, but fortunately the people of London will have the opportunity to vote for Shaun Bailey in May.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
When will the Secretary of State for Health next come to the House to update us? People will have seen reports on last night’s news that two patients at King’s College Hospital in my constituency have been diagnosed as positive with coronavirus. That has immediately raised questions in the minds of patients who are due for appointments this morning. Should they go in or not? Would visitors be turned away if they went to visit their friends and relatives? Should GPs be referring now? Until the point at which I came into the Chamber, there was nothing on the King’s website to say what the situation is. I understand that it is business as usual in King’s College hospital, and I want to thank all the staff for their work, particularly those in A&E, but we need to have more immediate real-time information as well as the important work that is being done in the national health service.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. and learned Lady raises the right points. The Health Secretary will be in the House on Tuesday for routine questions, but he has committed to making more frequent statements if that is necessary. May I add the important piece of advice that anybody who is worried about symptoms of coronavirus should ring 111, and not go into A&E. I reiterate her thanks to the people who are serving on the frontline in the NHS in dealing with this problem.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on the role of managing agents? Many of my residents are suffering from unscrupulous residential managing agents, including those who are charging fees for services they do not provide and those who are not enforcing the rebuilding of their property or even establishing a sinking fund. Many of my constituents feel that they are being ripped off, and I believe that the Government could take this opportunity to show that we are on the side of our constituents.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We will be having a renters reform Bill, as was announced in the Queen’s Speech, and powers will be coming forward within the legislative programme that look at leaseholds, so I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that there will be opportunities during this Session of Parliament to look at these issues.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Backbench Business Committee is back in business. As well as the business that has been announced by the Leader of the House in this business statement, we have determined that on Thursday 12 March in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on freedom of religion or belief, led by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and that on Tuesday 17 March in Westminster Hall there will be a general debate on tackling alcohol harm, led by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
May I also announce and tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House, that there is a debate scheduled on the Horizon settlement. I know that that appears to replicate something that is happening today, but it will not replicate it, because we were convinced by the application that there were many aspects of the Horizon settlement that were worthy of further debate in this Chamber. That is why we agreed to allot that time.
Finally, the Leader of the House has said that there are no plans to close Parliament and that Parliament has been very resilient over the years, and of course we should be about our business, but is anything being said about planning to restrict public access in any way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The current medical advice is that there would be no advantage in doing that, but the House authorities will be guided by medical advice.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Continuing with the issue of reducing crime, Warwickshire police, under the guidance of the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Philip Seccombe, has been successful in a bid to the Home Office to increase the proportion of officers equipped and trained in the use of Tasers from 20% to 28%. May we have a debate on how the use of such equipment can assist the police in keeping us safe?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Considerable resources are being devoted to allowing more police officers to carry Tasers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise this point, because ensuring that the police have the equipment they need—I am glad to say that Conservative police and crime commissioners are doing this across the country—will help to keep the country safe.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In Blaenau Gwent 39% of ATMs charge people for accessing their own cash. The cashpoint network LINK says that without Government intervention, the system that allows free access to cash will collapse within two years. May we therefore have a statement on how the Government intend to protect free access to cash?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issues surrounding bank closures and ATMs are raised regularly in the House. Banks have committed, since May 2017, to the access to banking standards, which commit them to working with customers and communities to minimise the impact of closures. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it will be discussed within the Government. I suggest that an Adjournment debate is the most suitable debate for specific constituency matters.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On Saturday 22 February, Ipswich man Richard Day was sadly killed in the town centre. It is not the first time Ipswich has seen such a brutal incident. At about the same time there were two burglaries, when a hair salon and a café were broken into. We welcome the extra 54 police officers that Suffolk will be getting, but it does not go quite far enough. Suffolk currently receives £152 a year per head of population for policing, while the national average is £192. May we therefore have a debate on the future of the police funding formula, to level up police funding so that we can increase the police presence in Ipswich and ensure that such tragedies do not happen again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Nationally, 20,000 more police are being recruited—the process has already started—which will benefit every single police region across the country and help to bring down crime.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituent John has been out of work since 2017, despite his best efforts, due to overwhelming mental health issues. He has been signed off by his GP for that period. He was awarded a personal independence payment and employment and support allowance in 2018, yet later that year he was deemed fit for work and lost his ESA, much to the shock of his family and his doctor. Latterly there have been monumental administrative blunders at the Department for Work and Pensions, but the overwhelming issue here is the disparity of esteem between mental and physical health. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate on this important issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is broad support across the House for giving a higher priority to the treatment of mental health conditions, and there is extra spending, to record levels, going into mental health. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns about his constituent, and I assume that he is taking them up with the relevant Department. If at any point he needs my assistance in that, I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement on the days for debating the Budget. Ahead of the Budget, and following the question from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on access to cash, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to convey to the Chancellor the message that the Budget is in fact an opportunity, as identified by the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses and others, to secure the long-term future of access to cash? A recent report identified that 8 million people across the United Kingdom could not cope at this time with a cashless society, and many of them live in large rural constituencies such as mine.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend has made an eloquent plea to the Chancellor, and put it more finely than I possibly could, so I will ensure that his words are extracted from Hansard and sent to the Chancellor so that he may consider them while preparing his Budget.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I took the Leader of the House’s previous advice and wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 11 February, to request a meeting on the decrepit state of Luton’s train station. I still have not received a response and the train station is in urgent need of vital investment. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can prompt a response from the Transport Secretary?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady has proved, in an excellent way, that she needs no advice from me, but her point is noted and I will give the Department for Transport a gentle reminder on her behalf.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It has been brought to my attention that the affairs of a business allegedly producing counterfeit antiques have been made the subject of a consent order, now known as a non-disclosure agreement, with large cash settlements being used to enable the perpetrator not only to escape justice but to threaten those who seek to bring these matters to light. Indeed, a journalist who wrote about the matter in a very small antiques journal was financially ruined and narrowly escaped a custodial sentence back in June 2018. Can we therefore please have a debate on the scope and use of non-disclosure agreements where there is evidence that they are being used to escape potential criminal prosecution?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Non-disclosure agreements cannot prevent any disclosure that is required or protected by law; nor can they preclude an individual from asserting their statutory rights under either the Employment Rights Act 1996—including, of most importance, whistleblowing—or the Equality Act 2010. There are often legitimate reasons for parties to seek to enter an NDA, such as preventing commercial information being shared inappropriately or protecting intellectual property, but they should not be used, and may not be used, to conceal criminality.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The infected blood inquiry reconvened last week to hear expert evidence from people in the fields of HIV and hepatitis. Sir Brian Langstaff, in his closing remarks at the end of the week, said that there is a clear need for psychological support services for those affected and infected. Can we have a statement from the Government on how they intend to respond to Sir Brian’s significant ask of them at this stage?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again, I commend the hon. Lady for her work and campaigning on the issue. Where the Government err, it is incumbent on them to put things right. She asks for a statement, and I will take it up with the two relevant Departments—the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care—to see whether I can get her a fuller response.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I would not want to be seen as too much of a stickler on these things, but my right hon. Friend will no doubt be distressed to note that the Union Jack above Portcullis House has been flying upside down for some time. It could be a mistake, and I doubt the building has surrendered to anybody, but can we have a debate in Government time on whether it is the building that is in distress or the MPs within it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a deeply troubling matter that the Union Jack should be flying upside down. [Hon. Members: “Union flag.”] Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The pedants are wrong. It is the Union Jack, and it has been referred to as such for many centuries. There is a pedantic but erroneous view that it should be called the Union flag, and it is held by people who are more pedantic than they are wise.
I am sorry that this has happened, and I am glad it has been brought to the attention of the House authorities. I imagine that, as we speak, somebody is going to correct this. [Interruption.] I see that the Clerk of the House of Commons is taking action immediately. Things sometimes happen swiftly, and I assure my hon. Friend that Members of Parliament are not in distress.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Private Joseph Berry, a 21-year-old soldier who sadly lost his life while deployed on operations in Kabul serving with the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment. This tragedy coincides with the announcement that a peace deal has been reached by the US Government and the Taliban. There are many concerns about the agreement, not least the degree to which the Afghan Government have or have not been involved. Given the commitment our country has made to Afghanistan and the lives that have been lost, does the Leader of the House think we need a debate on the political situation in Afghanistan so that hon. and right hon. Members are afforded the opportunity to discuss these important matters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I join the hon. Gentleman in sending condolences to the family of Private Joseph Berry. It is the greatest sacrifice that people in our armed forces make for us and for the safety not only of our nation but internationally.
My right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary has made a statement on the agreement between the US Government and the Taliban, and he said it is important that the Taliban and the Afghan Government are able to settle things in their way, rather than necessarily having things imposed upon them.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
To celebrate World Book Day and the joy of reading, will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his support for a zero VAT rate on digital and audio books in the forthcoming Budget, to bring them into line with print publications? Does he agree that VAT on e-publications is a barrier to childhood literacy and has a disproportionate impact on those with disabilities, inhibiting their capacity to read if they cannot handle print books?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is an unwise Leader of the House who makes personal statements about the Budget a few days before it, so I am not going to fall into that trap. I would, however, urge the hon. Lady to raise these points on Wednesday or Thursday of next week, or Monday or Tuesday of the one after.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Almost £6 million of pension credit was unclaimed in my constituency—we are talking about more than 3,000 households—and the figure for Wales was more than £200 million. Given that fall in take-up rates, may we have a statement or a debate in the House to show what more the Government are doing to increase awareness and take-up of pension credit?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad to say that we have Work and Pensions questions on Monday, which is the right opportunity to raise that matter. The Government are keen that people who are entitled to claim money do so, and significant amounts of additional money have been claimed following the roll-out of universal credit.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Over the weekend, the life of a young Coventrian was tragically taken by knife crime, and my thoughts are with his loved ones. That was the second death of a young person from knife crime in the city in a matter of weeks. On its own, having additional police is not enough to solve this, so will the Government give time to discuss the urgent need to take a public health approach to knife crime?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are considering a number of ways of tackling knife crime, including having additional police, increasing stop-and-search powers and revisiting sentencing, to ensure that people who commit the most serious offences spend longer in prison.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Last year, Huma Younus, a 14-year-old Pakistani Catholic girl, was one of an estimated 1,000 young girls, mainly from Christian and Hindi communities, who was kidnapped, forced to convert and made to marry an older man. Last month, the high court in Karachi told Huma’s distraught parents that because she had had her first menstrual cycle her marriage was, in its eyes, legal. So, on the eve of International Women’s Day, may I ask the Government to raise Huma’s case with the Pakistani authorities? May we also have a Government statement to reassure this House that those in receipt of UK aid money are protecting children such as Huma?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There was a debate in Government time on the issue of the persecution of Christians. We raise that issue regularly with foreign Governments in respect of the treatment of their nationals and the protection of women’s rights. The overseas aid budget is committed to doing that. These issues are well raised on the Floor of this House in order to remind the Government to raise them with the relevant Governments.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have a debate about banking? As the Leader of the House will know, the best part of £50,000 has now been raised by people in the Rhondda for those who have suffered as a result of the recent flooding. That is an amazing amount of money and it would be good to get that money to people, but HSBC, which has the money sitting in the bank account, has said that we cannot possibly transfer it out until next Tuesday because we have to go to see a business manager in Cardiff, some 15 miles away. That seems preposterous. If ordinary businesses regularly have to go through this business of having to make an appointment, days ahead, to see a business manager so as to be able to transfer funds, this must surely be madness.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman has raised this point in the House. It is a fundamental principle of banking that the owners of the money should be able to move their money; that is the basis on which people make deposits, and banks that try to frustrate that are not operating properly. He has made his point about the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, and it is now on the record.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
One series of debates that I am not that keen on hearing is the one asked for by Conservative Members, which seems to be about playing the election campaigns of their candidate in the London elections. May I respectfully suggest that this is not the place for running those election campaign debates, given that the candidates are not in this place?
I want to raise the issue of Secretaries of State coming to this House to discuss coronavirus. We are grateful for the work that the Health Secretary has done in coming to this House to answer extensive questions, but many of the issues we are raising cover issues under the purview of other ministries. I did get an answer to a question I raised about the Home Office and immigration, but I have had an email from an under-fives nursery provider in my constituency who has told me that there is no insurance cover for her business in the event of any coronavirus-related closure. That applies to all under-fives nursery businesses and probably to many other businesses in this country, so may we ask that the Business Secretary comes to this place to answer questions for businesses?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not surprised that Opposition Members want to avoid debating Sadiq Khan—it should not surprise anyone that they want to brush his record under the carpet. However, to suggest that this House should not raise party political matters is the triumph of hope over experience.
In regard to matters that are not specifically the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in relation to the coronavirus, I would advise that those are dealt with by correspondence with the relevant Ministry in the first instance. That may get faster answers than trying to raise everything on the Floor of the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Earlier this week, the chief executive of the Vauxhall Motors car plant in Ellesmere Port said that no investment decisions will be made there until at least the end of the year. I understand that that is because they want to see the shape of any free trade deal with the EU, but this uncertainty is causing huge anxiety in the constituency. It really is possible now for Government to say that they will make sure that, whatever the shape of future trading, there will be no impediments and no extra costs to the automotive sector. If the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could make that statement now, it would be a huge relief for the whole constituency.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union on the basis of being sovereign equals. That is the policy—that has been announced—and a great deal of background paper has been issued in relation to it. Businesses will be able to understand that and to make their investment decisions on what is already known.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Last week saw two drugs summits in Glasgow, with the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council hosting one on Wednesday and taking the recommendations, which included supervised drug consumption rooms, to the UK Government’s drug summit on Thursday. The Leader of the House will understand that I do not want to treat this issue as a political football, particularly when I have people dying in my constituency, and when constituents are opening their doors to find people injecting themselves in the groin and needles all over the place. However, without any movement from the UK Government, we face the prospect of people in Glasgow setting up drug consumption rooms illegally. I am sure that, to save lives, the Leader of the House would want to avoid people acting illegally, so could I ask him to help me facilitate a meeting with the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to move this issue forward as a matter of urgency.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the hon. Lady rightly says, there was a summit in Glasgow last week, which brought together healthcare professionals, drug recovery experts and senior police officers, as well as Ministers and officials from the UK Government and devolved Administrations, to discuss drug misuse in the UK and explore further action around these issues. At the moment, there is no change on the matter of consumption rooms from the point of view of Her Majesty’s Government. I am happy to pass on the message from the hon. Lady, but I think I would be giving a misleading impression if I suggested that there was an intention to change the policies.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Could I ask for a debate in Government time on the infrastructure required to manage the transition to electric vehicle adoption in the UK? The Leader of the House will be well aware that transport is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions in the country. We have had debates on HS2, but I would argue that EV infrastructure is more important than HS2. Can we have a debate on it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is probably more of a Backbench Business debate, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort, in that there will be Transport questions on Thursday next week, when I am sure he will want to raise this important point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Muhyiddin Yassin was sworn in as Malaysia’s eighth Prime Minister on Sunday morning, leading to political unrest. Rhetoric against non-Muslims has escalated following the change in Prime Minister, and radical Muslim groups are being emboldened to propose that the new Government pursue an agenda that will significantly limit the right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on this urgent and pressing matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The UK recognises the right to manifest religious belief as one of fundamental importance, and the hon. Gentleman knows how much I share his concerns in this area. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are vital and interconnected rights. Exercising those rights requires civility, restraint and judgment from everyone. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief and promoting respect between communities of different religions and those of no religion. Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right, which intersects with many other human rights.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is the person in charge of policies on bullying and harassment in this House, and under him and the new Speaker, we do seem to be making progress. I wondered whether he wanted to send a message today to all those who may wish to come forward to the inquiry into the current Home Secretary that they should do so without fear or favour, without any fear of their jobs, and without anything being predetermined by those on the Government Benches? They need to feel that they can trust in those on the Treasury Benches actually being able to hear them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme within this House is of great importance, and I encourage all members of staff and hon. and right hon. Members to use it if they have complaints, because it can do things at a variety of levels. With regard to my right hon. Friend, she is one of the most brilliant Home Secretaries that this country could possibly have. She is a most determined, capable and forthright person. I should like to make it clear that she rejects the allegations that have been made against her. She is a dynamic and effective Minister. As a Back Bencher, I found that if you wanted something done, she was one of those people who simply got things done. She is a superb Minister and does a wonderful job. The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts relating to allegations, but we in this country believe that people are innocent until there is any evidence of guilt. Although I have full support in my right hon. Friend who denies these allegations, an inquiry has been set up, and the Prime Minister has asked for the facts to be established.
Flybe
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about the collapse of Flybe.
In the early hours of this morning, Flybe ceased trading. This was a commercial decision by the company and Flybe has filed for insolvency. UK airports handled 9.5 million Flybe passengers in 2008, 80% of whom were travelling within the UK. An estimated 15,000 passengers were due to fly today, so our immediate priority is to support passengers travelling home and employees who have lost their jobs.
Flybe has had a challenging year in terms of its financial performance, with a decline in bookings and increased competition. Levelling up connectivity across our regions and nations is a top priority for this Government. We are driving forward HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have announced a £5 billion funding package for bus and cycle links, and we are investing £6.6 billion to improve the condition of local highway networks between 2015 and 2021. We are undertaking a review of regional connectivity to ensure that the UK has the domestic transport connections on which local communities can rely, including regional airports. The Treasury is also reviewing air passenger duty to ensure that regional connectivity is supported while meeting the UK’s climate change commitment to meet net zero by 2050.
These measures featured in conversations with Flybe back in January and, in turn, it agreed to continue operating. Since then, we have been working tirelessly to explore multiple options with Flybe shareholders to find a solution. Flybe outlined that problems with its business had been compounded by the outbreak of coronavirus, which, in the past few days, has had a significant impact on demand. The directors have therefore decided that it was not viable to keep Flybe operating. Unfortunately, in a competitive market, companies do fail, and it is not the role of Government to prop them up.
Given the time of year, the nature of Flybe’s business and fleet, and the routes that it flies, sufficient alternative transport arrangements should be available, either with other airlines or by road and rail.
The number of passengers abroad is small and it is further reduced as a result of coronavirus. For those passengers who are abroad, there is sufficient capacity on commercial airlines to return to the UK. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State are encouraging these airlines to offer rescue fares, and that is already happening. I thank those airlines, including easyJet, which has today announced that it will offer Flybe passengers a dedicated rescue fare until the end of May. We are working with bus and rail operators to support Flybe passengers to get to their destinations, and I am extremely grateful that the Rail Delivery Group has this morning confirmed that all operators are offering free travel to Flybe staff and passengers for a week.
I ask passengers due to fly with Flybe in the next few days not to turn up at the airport. Instead, they should look at the website set up by the Civil Aviation Authority, and talk to their travel agents, travel insurance providers and credit card companies. For those who do arrive at UK airports today, we are making Government representatives available to offer support and provide information to affected passengers.
I express my sincere sympathy to those who have lost their jobs as a result of this failure, including crew, engineers, technicians, staff at Flybe headquarters in Exeter and others. We understand that this is a worrying time for workers and their families. The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to support anyone affected by the closure with its rapid response service offer, which will be available to all those affected through local Jobcentre Plus outlets. Additionally, in the event of any redundancies, there are special arrangements for employees who are owed redundancy payments and other payments by their insolvent employer. The redundancy payments service in the Insolvency Service can pay certain amounts owed to former employees from the national insurance fund. I will work with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that any redundancy payments are paid to affected employees as soon as possible.
We recognise the impact that this situation will have on UK airports, particularly those which have large-scale Flybe operations. The Government stand ready to support the sector, and I have full confidence that it will respond as effectively as it always has. We are urgently working with the industry to identify opportunities to fill routes, and I have spoken to the airlines today to emphasise this. Aviation is facing challenges globally due to the impact of coronavirus. The Government are well prepared for this, and as the wider economic picture becomes clearer, the Chancellor has said that he stands ready to announce further support where needed. I will be chairing a roundtable with members of the aviation industry next week to discuss issues presented by coronavirus.
I thank passengers for their patience and appreciate the work undertaken by everyone who has again stepped up to ensure that passengers and local communities are supported. We will continue to work across Government to ensure that passengers and staff are able to access the information and services they require at this sad and challenging time.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The collapse of Flybe is disastrous news for passengers and employees alike, and will cause real anxiety in many regions throughout the country. The loss of 2,000 jobs—many in areas that are very heavily reliant on aviation—will be an extremely heavy blow, as will the wider impact on supply chains and regional economies. About 2,000 direct jobs are due to be lost from this collapse. What steps is the Minister taking to help those workers to find new jobs?
Sadly, Flybe follows an ever-growing list of British airlines to go under in recent years, and the Civil Aviation Authority has time and again made monumental efforts to look after passengers. Will the Government draw on the skills and expertise of the CAA if existing capacity does not prove sufficient to guarantee that every Flybe passenger gets home safely? We must recognise the generous offers of assistance from other businesses to support Flybe staff and passengers, but yet again airline workers face an anxious and uncertain future while the Government have sat on their hands and allowed this to happen. Recent airline failures have already lost approximately 11,000 jobs. This time the Government must respond and provide Flybe staff with all the necessary support. Flybe has said that the impact of the coronavirus has contributed to its collapse, so what assessment has the Minister made of the risk to other airlines, and what preparations are now in place?
Flybe has provided critical regional connectivity for many locations throughout the country with no other viable option than flying. We listen to no end of rhetoric on the importance of regional connectivity, but yet again the Government have allowed a service of critical economic importance to fail. Any kind of positive or proactive approach has been completely lacking. The Government must now answer on how vital regional links will be maintained following Flybe’s collapse.
Finally, the sector has asked the Government to review the 80/20 rule whereby if they do not use the slots, they lose them. This forces airlines to continue with flights that are half-empty, or worse. Will the Minister address the industry’s concerns on this matter urgently? Will she break the radio silence that has been happening for many, many months on the issue of regional connectivity?
Kelly Tolhurst
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman in the sadness that he expressed about the loss of jobs for people working for Flybe. When any organisation collapses in this way, it is a sad day for the individuals and communities it affects. I personally am extremely committed to making sure that we, as a Government, are working with colleagues to ensure that those individuals—those staff members—are given the advice and support that they require. In particular, we are very lucky in that we have been engaging with the industry, which is pulling together, and some airlines have said that they are going to prioritise staff from Flybe within their recruitment process. So that is good, and I am hoping to see movement on it as time goes on.
Turning to next steps, with regard to the passengers, obviously everybody is concerned about individuals travelling and how they will get back and move around the country. I reiterate that the majority of Flybe passengers are travelling domestically. As I have outlined, we are working with the airlines on fares and on making sure that the capacity is there. We are also making sure that people can travel on the railways. Of course, those conversations will continue. I am having a meeting later today, so if any MP would like to ask specific questions or get an update on where we are with that information, I would be very grateful if they attended.
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, because we have had many debates and discussions on a number of things over the years, but I disagree with his statement that we have sat on our hands. We, as a Government, have absolutely been working hard on this. We have been determined to be able to work with shareholders and work with the company in order to secure Flybe for the future. I must be really clear: we are in this situation today because Flybe shareholders and directors took the decision to place the business in insolvency. This is not where I, as the aviation Minister, wanted to be with regard to Flybe.
I am acutely aware of the impact that this will have on regional airports. The hon. Gentleman is right: we have spoken a lot about regional connectivity. However, we are determined to deliver on our promises to the country—that is, making sure that we are levelling up, and that regional connectivity via those airports remains viable. My Department and officials are working really hard with the airlines and the airports. We have been speaking to them today. I personally have had conversations with the airlines and the airports today. We will be maintaining that work in order to establish replacements and the ability of the industry to pick up some of the routes that are affected. We will look at and discuss some of the ongoing challenges relating to those specific airports.
The 80/20 rule, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is controlled by Airport Coordination Ltd and the European Commission. The European Commission is central to that, as he will understand.
My Department and I, specifically, have been having these conversations. I am in connection with the industry to understand the challenges, and I am taking that forward to do what I can, in my role as a Minister, to ease this burden. I stand here willing to speak to anyone this afternoon and to give people updates as and when I can. I hope that has given some comfort.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On behalf of the Transport Committee, I want to express sympathy for the passengers inconvenienced and, in particular, the staff, who will be devastated and to whom I hope better things will come. Airline insolvency reform was in the Queen’s Speech. I know that the Minister works hard for business, but I want to press her: when will there be an opportunity to introduce legislation, so that we can help airlines as they either unwind or are able to recover?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and note his particular interest as Chair of the Select Committee. He is right that we announced in the Queen’s Speech that we would legislate to enhance the Civil Aviation Authority’s oversight of airlines and its ability to mitigate the impact of failure. I am keen to move that legislation forward as soon as possible, and I am happy to give him further updates.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
First and foremost, this is horrendous news for the employees of Flybe, who have lost their jobs in an abrupt, public and distressing manner. Of the 2,000 Flybe staff, about 300 were based in Scotland, with 130 of them in my constituency at Glasgow airport. My thoughts are with all of them, and my constituency office stands ready to assist any local staff affected.
This is also terrible news for passengers, airports and, in particular, regional connectivity. I need not remind the Minister how important regional connectivity is to Scotland. Flybe operated over half the UK’s domestic capacity outside London—that is a huge gap to fill. That said, I am hopeful that some of these routes can be backfilled relatively quickly. I know that Glasgow airport has already had productive discussions with airlines, and in particular Loganair.
There is no doubt that Flybe management have questions to answer; the warning signs have been clear for many years. While I do not blame the UK Government for Flybe’s demise, they, too, have some serious questions to answer. The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and spoke of the “rescue” of Flybe, yet here we are. I am sure that some passengers bought tickets as a result of the apparent strength of the Government intervention. Will the Government refund those passengers? The Secretary of State also made great play of the regional connectivity review—where is it? It was deemed urgent then, yet we have seen nothing. Moreover, many warned of the consequences of the Government failing to bring forward airline insolvency plans following the collapse of Monarch. It took Thomas Cook to go bust before this Government leapt into action, sadly all too late. If they had acted, we could have avoided the scenes at airports last night, with passengers and Flybe staff alike stranded.
I understand that the Secretary of State is to speak with Michael Matheson. What assurances can the Minister offer Scottish regional passengers? Will she consider extending public service obligations to key regional flights, which are lifeline services in parts of Scotland? The next few months will be extremely challenging for the entire travel and holiday sector. What assurances can she give that no more businesses will go to the wall, as this statement contains merely warm words and no actions?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand the distress and concern in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and region about the flights operating out of those airports. We have had some good news: Loganair has already committed to ensure that 16 of the routes stay in place. We are hopeful that we will be able to work with industry to pick up some of those routes, and I can assure him that the Department is determined to backfill those routes and maintain the viability of regional airports. He asked me a number of questions. I am more than happy to speak with him afterwards if he wants to go into detail and to speak with Scottish colleagues about the particular effect on Scotland and the PSO routes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am expecting to run this session until around 12 o’clock.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Flybe’s headquarters are based at Exeter airport in my constituency of East Devon. This is devastating news for Devon and for regional connectivity in the south-west. Now is the time to invest in the south-west, and my colleagues and I will be watching the Budget next week with great interest. My thoughts are with the people who have lost their jobs as a result of the decision taken by shareholders to walk away despite the support offered by the Government. Everything should now be done to support those who have lost their jobs, and I know that the Department for Work and Pensions is stepping up as we speak. Will the Minister explain what steps are being taken to secure as many Flybe routes as possible?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend, and I understand his particular concern about Exeter airport. It truly is sad for employees in his constituency, and just to reiterate, we do stand ready to do what we can for those individuals. We are working very hard in my Department, as we have been since the early hours of this morning, with the airlines to make sure that we can fill as many of the routes as possible. Those in the airline sector have been great in coming together and working with us in a very constructive way to deliver on that. I give him my assurances that I will be looking at this in the next days and weeks to make sure that we are able to continue our connectivity.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Giving evidence to the Treasury Committee yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England said that the effect of coronavirus was likely to be “large”, but “temporary”. Does the Minister agree that if, at this very difficult time, infrastructure that might have survived without the problems caused by coronavirus is actually allowed to go to the wall by the Government, the effect of coronavirus will not be as temporary as the Governor thought?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady, but I would disagree with her: we have not let Flybe go to the wall. However, we are assessing—and, as a responsible Government, we are continuing the preparation for—the wider economic impact of coronavirus. It is a moving picture, and as she would imagine, we are keeping things under close review. The Chancellor has said that if action needs to be taken, he stands ready to do so. We must remember that this was a commercial decision taken by an investor that has been affected by the coronavirus. We understand and are looking at the challenges, and we will continue to work to make sure that the economic prosperity of this country survives.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Eighty-four years ago, the first Spitfire flew from Southampton airport in my constituency, on 5 March 1936. The news last night will be devastating for the 1,500 people who rely on Southampton airport in my constituency. The Minister will know that 95% of flights at Southampton airport are provided by Flybe, and that the short runway means it is unlikely that other carriers will be able to take the brunt of replacement services. Will the Minister talk to the Treasury as soon as possible to ensure that the APD review concludes as quickly as possible and that local regional airports can expand if they need to?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend. Regional airports are massively important for the regional connectivity of the UK, and so is air travel in getting people around. There are particular issues with Southampton airport, as my hon. Friend mentioned, given the short runway. The Chancellor was clear about the APD review, and we are clear that we will do the regional air connectivity review. I am very passionate about making sure that our regional airports stay viable and open.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I was meant to be a domestic flyer with Flybe this morning, but I could not get a train, and the infrastructure development of cycle links would not have helped either, because I was going to Belfast with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) on business for this place. Northern Ireland is uniquely dependent on Flybe. It is disappointing not to have a statement from the Government about that. What are they going to do to support the Northern Ireland economy, which will be devastated by this infrastructure decision?
Kelly Tolhurst
As the hon. Lady will know, the decision to put the business into insolvency happened in the early hours of the morning. We have stood ready and worked hard to get a response out, and we have CAA and Government officials at some of the airports affected to deal with some of these issues. We are absolutely clear that Northern Ireland is a key part of connectivity around the United Kingdom. I have spoken with some Northern Irish colleagues this morning, and I am very clear that I will continue to work with them to find solutions that work for Northern Ireland in the future.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Today should be a day of celebration in Cornwall, as it is St Piran’s Day, but it will be tinged with sadness because of the devastating impact this will have on the Cornish economy, particularly so close to the Easter holidays, which mark the start of the tourism season. The Government already recognise the crucial importance of the Newquay to London link, because it is supported by a public sector obligation; will the Minister confirm that that PSO will remain backed by the Government, and will she work with me, Cornwall Council and the industry to find another carrier to pick up this vital route as urgently as possible?
Kelly Tolhurst
I can confirm that we are determined to ensure that that route continues, and I will of course work with my hon. Friend and Cornwall Council to deliver that; we are doing so already, but we will step up efforts.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Overnight Northern Ireland has essentially lost about 25% of its capacity, and there may well be a lag in finding new carriers, with a knock-on impact for the local economy. In the Government’s response to the situation and in formulating a new strategy, will the Minister take into account the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland? A one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as we do not have alternative road and rail links. Also, in terms of climate change and APD, there might need to be some special consideration of the Northern Ireland situation.
Kelly Tolhurst
I completely agree. I absolutely recognise that the situation is different in Northern Ireland, and the Department and I will work with regional colleagues to understand the specific issues relating to Northern Ireland and make sure that we are able to develop policies that work both for the Northern Irish people and for the economy.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
This is awful news for Hampshire, and for the great number of our constituents who are going to face a very uncertain future. There is obviously not a queue of airlines waiting to pick up the regional Flybe routes, and let us be clear that that was the case before the covid-19 virus plunged the industry into even further doubt, but the basic truth is that if Flybe had never existed someone would have had to invent it. This model works brilliantly in the United States, where regional airlines, often backed by the larger carriers, are successful businesses, but Flybe clearly could not make it work this side of the pond. Why does the Minister think that is the case, and, realistically, what are this Government prepared to do? What can they do to change that, given the importance the Minister rightly placed today on regional connectivity and our manifesto commitments in this area?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern regarding the airport in his locality, but, as I have outlined, we have been clear about having a review of regional air connectivity and making sure that we truly understand the solutions. Once we have done that, we can work out ways to move forward. But today is very much about short-term solutions and the reaction to the collapse of Flybe. There are many issues, and I am more than happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend and other colleagues after the statement.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
As the Minister will be aware, one of the partners in this failure is Stobart, which operates Teesside airport on behalf of the Tees Valley Mayor and was contracted to do the job because of so-called expertise in the industry. This must be an added anxiety for the Mayor, who has seen losses increase at the airport under Stobart’s management. He said that it is business as usual this morning for flights, despite many of them being dependent on Flybe systems. Can the Minister also guarantee that all flights from Teesside will operate as normal and that there is no cause for concern?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have a fantastic Mayor in Teesside, and I have had discussions with him. One of the things we will be doing is making sure that, as I have said today, we are working really hard within the Department, talking to airlines and to the airports to make sure that we are able to provide and backfill some of those routes and that the airports remain as viable as possible.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Obviously my sympathies go out to the staff affected by the collapse of Flybe, and also the passengers affected in Banff and Buchan and throughout north-east Scotland, because a large number of its flights would have been serviced from Aberdeen. I know the Government are committed to levelling up regional connectivity across the whole United Kingdom, not least from discussions I have had recently with the Secretary of State specifically on the loss of other flights between Aberdeen and London: Flybe’s own flight to London City; Loganair’s to Southend, recently; and the easyJet flight to Gatwick last year. Can my hon. Friend confirm that she will work closely with the industry, the airports and the airlines to minimise the disruption caused by the loss of these Flybe routes?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand my hon. Friend’s specific concerns, which we have spoken about before. As I have tried to describe from the Dispatch Box today, I am very keen to work with the airlines and those airports to understand the specific issues and challenges that we need to address to enable those routes and flights to continue. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Obviously, the regional point-to-point services will be the priority, but will the Minister bear in mind that, especially for services from Scotland, Flybe provided the limited competition that we have at the hub airports at Heathrow and London City? Those slots will be much more difficult to fill. Will she impress on the airport operators that those slots must be kept available for regional flights and must not just be snaffled up by the big guys doing long-haul?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As he will appreciate, I have already had conversations this morning with the airlines and my officials, and we will continue to do that in order to maintain regional connectivity and those routes. The conversations are ongoing, and we will be working through this over the next few days and into next week.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
South-east airports such as Southampton’s have a role to play in levelling up because they provide connectivity to Belfast, Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend also recognise that Southampton airport provides a vital link to the Channel Islands for those seeking medical treatment at Southampton General Hospital? Will she undertake to make the airport one of her key priorities, given its 95% reliance on Flybe flights, and reassure Hampshire colleagues that she is absolutely cognisant of the impact of its short runway?
Kelly Tolhurst
I note my right hon. Friend’s particular concerns about Southampton; a number of colleagues have already addressed some of the challenges there. It is absolutely true that Southampton airport is vital for passengers travelling from the Channel Islands for health reasons. I am absolutely committed to making sure that I work with colleagues, airlines and airports to solve some of the issues following the collapse of Flybe.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) about the lack of attention that the Government seem to have paid to routes to Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is also involved: Cardiff airport, which will be hit badly by this announcement as well, had crucial routes to both Belfast and Dublin.
Will ferry travel be included either in the free travel being offered by the rail companies or in rescue fares? Obviously, routes to Holyhead, particularly through Pembroke and Fishguard, could also be a way of enabling passengers to get to their destinations.
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. As I hope he will appreciate, when I came to the Chamber conversations were still going on; we literally had the agreements on rail and with regard to easyJet just before I came in. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer, but I assure him that my colleagues and officials at the Department for Transport are working on those very options to get individuals home.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
My constituency is home to Birmingham airport, and the collapse of Flybe is extremely worrying. My thoughts go out to all the hard-working staff who will be worrying about their jobs this morning. Will the Minister tell us what measures the Department for Transport will be taking to ensure that Flybe staff are fully supported in getting new jobs? Will the DFT continue to monitor the situation and encourage other airlines to take them on?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the staff and some of the challenges. We are lucky today to have the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), on the Front Bench. She will roll out the rapid response service for those staff.
As I have outlined, Loganair has agreed to prioritise some of Flybe’s former staff. We will be working really hard with it and the rest of the industry to make sure that we can get those people into new jobs. Some of them are highly skilled and have great experience. We need to make sure that we find them new roles as soon as possible.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for taking the time to call me this morning and to extend her thoughts and offer support to all those affected at Belfast City airport and in the surrounding areas. She knows that Flybe catered for 67% of all passengers who travel through Belfast City airport and 80% of its total network, so this is hugely important.
I indicated to the Minister this morning that I believe that this a huge test for the Government. They have been large in their ambition when it comes to commitments on and the importance of regional connectivity, but light on detail and delivery. In recognising just how crucial regional connectivity is, will she assure us that the Chancellor—through air passenger duty—and other Departments will do all they can to make sure that we have the best conditions to not only support but grow regional connectivity, which is so crucial to our local economy?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am personally very interested in and care a lot about the Northern Ireland economy and some of the differences there compared with mainland UK. I reiterate that we are committed to regional connectivity, and I will work hard on that in this role. We had a manifesto commitment to consider the devolution of short-haul APD in Northern Ireland. We will work with the restored Northern Ireland Executive to consider any proposals submitted for the devolution of short-haul APD, and I stand ready to engage with Northern Irish colleagues at any time to take particular issues forward.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
As somebody who, many moons ago, trained up as an airline pilot, I have a lot of sympathy with former colleagues. The sector is very much seen as a specialised sector, so will my hon. Friend work with the Employment Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who I am grateful to see in the Chamber—to address the perception of specialisation? Other employers might see that as a barrier to entry, as opposed to looking at people’s transferrable skills.
Kelly Tolhurst
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right about the highly skilled nature of some individuals who have been working for Flybe. They absolutely have transferrable skills that can be used in other sectors. We will work together closely to make sure that we do all we can to recognise that.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The GMB trade union estimates that 1,400 supply chain jobs are at risk, as well as the 2,000 Flybe jobs. I welcome the support that the hon. Lady has mentioned from the Department for Work and Pensions. Will that be extended to supply chain employees, and will lessons be learned from the problems that some former Thomas Cook employees faced at jobcentres after that collapse? The Flybe overseas pension scheme is based in the Isle of Man, so members do not have access to the Pension Protection Fund. Can she offer any reassurance to members about the future of their pensions?
Kelly Tolhurst
As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we are working across Government—across the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions—on the response to the collapse of Flybe, to make sure that all the issues and troubles, particularly for staff, are addressed and that we are able to respond. I am happy to give him more updates at our briefing later in relation to specific, detailed questions on some of the issues that he raises. We stand ready to make sure that we deliver for individuals who have been made redundant. We also learned a lot from Thomas Cook’s collapse, but I remind him that this is not at the same level as it was with Thomas Cook.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Flybe is regrettably the second failure of a UK-based business in this sector in just six months. What parallels does my hon. Friend see with the collapse of Thomas Cook last September, and what lessons have been learned to ensure that the sector is not affected again in the near future?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend will know that we are working hard with the industry and the sector to understand some of the challenges. It is key to highlight that the Flybe collapse, in particular, has been reported as being due to the effects of coronavirus, so we are obviously seeing the impacts of that. We are not where we wanted to be as a Government—we were working hard to secure Flybe’s future. However, he is absolutely right, and as a responsible Department, we are making sure that we have those conversations with businesses and are absolutely on board with what is going on.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
This is the second occasion in six months when workers have tried to get to their workplace to be told that their company has ceased trading. This surely suggests that the regional connectivity review is urgent, so can the Minister tell us a timetable for the completion of the review?
Kelly Tolhurst
The regional air connectivity review is something that I am particularly interested in, and I am glad, as the Minister just appointed, that I will be heavily involved in it. As the hon. Gentleman would imagine, I am pushing for the review to be done as soon as possible.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
For many, domestic flights are sometimes the only viable option. Does the Minister agree that no business should be held back by poor transport links, and that we must do more to build up infrastructure in certain parts of the country?
Kelly Tolhurst
Absolutely, and that is what this Government are committed to delivering on. We are committed to delivering and levelling up all regions of the country, and that includes air, rail and other forms of transport. In the Department for Transport we are determined to do that and to deliver on the Government’s objectives.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
More than half the flights out of Wales, particularly from Cardiff, are Flybe, and the Minister will know that Flybe was reliant on domestic flights but also on European flights and therefore, like Thomas Cook, was badly hit by Brexit. Is the Minister evaluating companies that are facing Brexit weakness and then coronavirus? What is she doing about that? More generally, what are the Government doing about that?
Kelly Tolhurst
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point is that we are working with industry and speaking to industry to understand the challenges that are faced, particularly by airlines and more generally, with the advent of coronavirus. We seek to understand the issues relating to the UK as well as the impact on the global airline trade, which obviously will also affect the UK. That work is ongoing and we will continue to work to make sure that we have a good understanding and take action that is appropriate in order to maintain what we can.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Staff and suppliers will be devastated by the collapse of Flybe. Regional economies and cultural activities will also be severely impacted, especially in the absence of decent cross-country rail links, as in the north-east. This weekend, Newcastle United fans were due to fly to Southampton for the premiership match. Newcastle United fans have enough to deal with, with exploitative ownership, without having to make rip-off last-minute travel plans, so what will she do to ensure that they get to the match, and to support Newcastle—the airport, that is, not the team?
Kelly Tolhurst
I support the airport, but I do not support football much. But Newcastle is a great team. The hon. Lady raises a key point. As I have outlined, we are working with transport providers to make sure that people who planned to use Flybe are able to travel. I will take that forward as a specific action. I thank the hon. Lady.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
As the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) mentioned, last night’s announcement will have a significant effect on Welsh connectivity. More than 50% of flights from Cardiff airport were operated by Flybe. Scotland and Northern Ireland have powers over APD, and they may be able to use them to mitigate the damage. Will the British Government remove their ideological opposition to empowering the Welsh Government with this vital tool?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question and his concerns. At the moment we do not have any plans to change the APD policy. Our policy is as per the Exchequer Secretary’s response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report in September 2019:
“The UK Government has carefully considered the evidence gathered by the Welsh Affairs Committee and your final report, alongside reports commissioned by the Welsh Government and Bristol Airport.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. It is always important to hear her words and direction. In Northern Ireland the significance of Belfast City airport is greater than that of other airports as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has said. There has been some indication that other airlines may be prepared to fill those gaps. Is there any indication whether that will happen? The UK is the only major European nation to see a decline in direct connectivity in each of the past two years and, given the sad news today, surely the Government must take urgent action to reduce APD at all levels.
Kelly Tolhurst
We will work as closely as we can with the airports and airlines serving Northern Ireland so that we can maintain that connectivity, because connectivity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is important. The Chancellor has made a commitment to review APD, and I have already outlined our manifesto commitment to deliver on short-haul APD in Northern Ireland.
Bill Presented
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Priti Patel, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Justin Tomlinson and Kevin Foster, presented a Bill to make provision to end rights to free movement of persons under retained EU law and to repeal other retained EU law relating to immigration; to confer power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 March, and to be printed (Bill 104) with explanatory notes (Bill 104-EN).
International Women’s Day
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
This year’s theme is “each for equal”, which speaks to the vision that I have as Minister for Women and Equalities. I believe in the dignity and autonomy of the individual, and in giving everyone an equal opportunity to live the life that they choose. People should not be defined by their gender, or, come to that, by their race, their age, or where they come from. So on International Women’s Day this Sunday, we can enjoy and celebrate being women, but we should not be defined or limited by it.
It strikes me that this year’s “each for equal” theme is very much like the Government’s central mission: to level up, to deliver opportunity, and to unleash the potential of everyone across our United Kingdom. “Each for equal” and levelling up mean pushing back against the cult of female exceptionalism—the idea that women are more trustworthy or empathetic, or make better bosses—and pushing back against the lazy stereotypes of male exceptionalism—the idea that men are more decisive, stronger, or better leaders.
The Government’s role is to remove the barriers for women, so that it is their talent, ideas and character that matter and not anything else, and so that, in the words of the brilliant Taylor Swift in her new song, “women aren’t left running as fast as they can, wondering if they’d get there quicker if they were a man”. The rights and safety of women are of the utmost importance to the Government.
Like many others throughout the House, I am anticipating the moment when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will read out the names of all the women killed by male partners since the last International Women’s Day. I commend the hon. Lady—as well as others outside the House, such as Karen Ingala Smith of the Counting Dead Women project—for the heartbreaking reminder that there remain so many women to commemorate in this way. With that in mind, I am particularly pleased that the Government introduced the Domestic Abuse Bill this week, to tackle an injustice that still blights the lives of far too many people, and that this year we have committed £100 million of funding to combat violence against women, including £20 million directed specifically at domestic abuse.
Free enterprise gives people power over their own money, their own ideas and their own lives, and I believe that it has been a particularly liberating force for women. Between 1990 and 2015, the number of people living in extreme poverty globally fell by more than 1 billion, and most of those were women. That is the magnificent achievement of free markets and free trade, and it is through that opportunity and empowerment that women have pioneered the wonderful technological innovations and ideas that improve our lives.
One example is Ada Lovelace, whose picture hangs in the Pillared Room at No. 10 Downing Street. Empowered by a good education and independent finances, Lovelace, a mathematician, conceived of the first computers, sparking an ideas chain reaction via Bletchley Park which led to innovations that shape our modern world, everywhere from Silicon Valley to the mobile phone in your pocket. Another example is Katharine McCormick, a committed feminist who singlehandedly financed the contraceptive pill when the US Government refused to invest in its research.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I wholly support the Secretary of State’s celebration of the work of Ada Lovelace, but does she recognise that the work of women such as Ada Lovelace and Katherine Johnson, who worked on the US space programme, was not known and celebrated? Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is important that we celebrate the work of women, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths, where they have made a great contribution and yet have not been celebrated?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I am sure that she enjoyed the recent film “Hidden Figures”, which celebrated some of those workers—the fantastic female mathematicians who contributed at NASA. I know that she, like me, enjoys Lego, and will celebrate the new women scientist Lego sets. She is absolutely right, and we need to give girls and women the message about the great achievements and inventions of women that unfortunately have not been celebrated as much as they should have.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On celebrating women’s achievements, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that around the country, we have too few sculptures and statues of women? I am proud that Basingstoke has recognised Jane Austen by having the first ever sculpture made of her and put in the centre of our town. Should not more constituencies and Members of Parliament do something similar?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. In fact, I also recently saw the film “Emma.”, which is based on my favourite Jane Austen novel. She is right that we need more statues of women. Of course, we recently unveiled the Nancy Astor statue in Plymouth. We should have more statues of women in our public places, and we should celebrate the great women who have helped to make our country what it is.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). Is the Secretary of State aware of the scheme to erect a statue for Betty Campbell, the first black female headteacher in south Wales—a remarkable figure from Butetown in my constituency? She made an incredibly impact not only on young people locally, but on the wider community. I join with all those fighting for more women to be recognised in this way around the country.
Elizabeth Truss
I very much commend the work the hon. Member is doing on that; it is fantastic.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As it is International Women’s Day, I was running through in my mind who my most inspirational woman was. It has to be my mother, of course; probably everyone in this House would say it was theirs. She is coming up to 89 years of age, and is still a person who is very much to the fore. Does the Minister not agree that perhaps the most inspirational women are those who have lived a life of duty and service, and of honour and devotion to their community, and that we should shine a light on our Queen, perhaps the most extraordinary woman of our generation, as an example of what we should aspire to?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Women have contributed to our national life in all kinds of ways. Their achievements are not yet fully recognised, and we should do more on that.
Before we had tributes to these great women, I was talking about the contraceptive pill, an incredibly important innovation by a woman, in the face of opposition, which has transformed the ability of women to prevent unwanted pregnancy, enter the workplace, and escape traditional gender roles. As Trade Secretary, I have the privilege of seeing how women continue to seize the opportunities of freedom, kicking open doors that previously only men have walked through. In this job, I have met women at the top of their game—brilliant entrepreneurs setting up their own businesses, leaders of our country’s largest and most successful FTSE 300 companies, and of course our country’s world-class female diplomats across the globe. We now have women heading our missions in the United States and China, and we are making huge progress.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I first got involved with International Women’s Day in 2015, when I was asked to speak at an event; I had not heard of it before. That has prompted me to think about where we were then with women in public life, and where we are now. In 2015, there were 148 women in this House and 104 women in the two Houses of Congress, and a woman was poised to secure the Democrat nomination in the race for the White House—well, that one did not work out; but fast forward to today, and there are 220 women in Parliament, which is a 49% increase in five years.
Laura Farris
I thought I might get that. There are 127 women in the two Houses of Congress, which is a 23% increase, and we have had a second woman Prime Minister. Sometimes the pace towards gender equality is glacial, but in the last five years, it has been considerable, and that is something to celebrate this International Women’s Day.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have seen a huge culture change through things like the #MeToo movement. We have also seen a real recognition of the issues and challenges that women face, and they are being dealt with. This Government are very committed to dealing with those challenges.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I should like to back up what my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), have said. I was the leader of Westminster Council, and my predecessor and my successor are both women, which is amazing. As the mother of two teenagers, a daughter and a son, I am obviously empowering my daughter to be the person that she is, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally important that we empower our boys to be feminists and to agree that we are all equal? My daughter plays football and cricket, and my son plays football and cricket. He has always been taught that girls are equally as good, if not better, at those sports.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rigid stereotypes about what girls should do and what boys should do also hold boys back. They do not give them the opportunities they might want in traditionally female professions, for example, and they do not allow them to express themselves in ways that can be helpful and empowering and make their lives better. This is the point that I was making at the start of my remarks. Of course I am proud to be a woman; I love being a woman. I have two daughters, and I encourage them to celebrate being female, with all the great benefits and life experiences that that brings. At the same time, however, they should not in any way feel that that defines them or places on them any expectations about the way in which they live their lives. Equality for everyone—everyone being free from those preconceptions—is good for our society. It unleashes ideas and opportunities that will benefit us all.
I want to talk about my recent experience at the African investment summit that we held here in London. I met a group of fantastic entrepreneurs called the Lionesses. They were from sub-Saharan Africa, where they are leading the way with the highest rate of women entrepreneurs on the planet. They were a fantastic group of women. I do not think it is a coincidence that women are achieving so much in business. Free enterprise and free trade do not care about someone’s gender or sexuality, or the colour of their skin. The first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, once said that
“a widget remains a widget—and it will be bought anywhere if the price and quality are right. The market is a more powerful and more reliable liberating force than government can ever be.”
That is why we are so keen as a Government to champion female entrepreneurs, to champion opportunities for women in business and to champion women in the workplace. We need to ensure that everyone can enter, get back into, and get on in the workplace. I am proud that under this Government the employment rate for women has reached a record high of 72.4%. Almost 2 million more women are in work since 2010. When I talk to women across our country, they are not interested in identity politics. They are interested in how they, their families and their communities can get on in life. That is why we as a Government are focused on tackling the barriers that hold people back and on levelling up our country.
We are investing in our railways, roads and broadband to bring opportunities to every home and business. We have doubled the free childcare available in England to eligible working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours per week. We are supporting families across the UK through tax-free childcare, and we have established a new £1 billion fund to create more high quality, affordable childcare. We will extend entitlement to leave for unpaid carers, the majority of whom are women, to one week. This is the real substance of our national programme, which is inclusive to everybody. Its aim is to unite, to level up and to bring together every region and nation of our country.
As well as tackling these policy challenges, we recognise that ingrained assumptions pose barriers that make it harder for people to fulfil their potential. I vividly remember, as a 12-year-old girl, getting on a flight with KLM. My brothers were presented with junior pilot badges, but I was presented with a junior air hostess badge. That was a revelatory moment for me. I did not like being told what job I was able to do because I was a girl. I do not believe that any girl or boy should be encouraged to pursue a career or study a course because of their gender, yet between the ages of seven and 11, boys are almost twice as likely as girls to want to be scientists and four times more likely than girls to want to be engineers. This is linked to a significant lack of academic attainment for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and to their severe underrepresentation in related fields. That is why this Government have championed maths and science, benefiting girls and boys alike. There has been a 31% increase in girls’ entries to STEM A-levels in England since 2010, and the number of women in the UK accepted on to full-time STEM undergraduate courses increased by 34% between 2010 and 2019.
We recognise that championing women’s rights cannot stop at our borders, and the Government are also taking steps to empower women internationally. I find it appalling that child marriages, female genital mutilation and the denial of access to a quality education still blight our world, keeping women down and damaging the countries they live in. This is depriving us all of the ideas that they could pioneer, the vital jobs that they could be doing and the dreams that they could be pursuing.
The Government recognise that women can contribute positively to the modern world just as much as men. That is why we continue to support targeted development programmes to ensure that all girls, right around the world, receive 12 years of quality education. I strongly agree with the Prime Minister, who speaks so passionately on this subject, that all girls must be allowed to achieve their potential, whether they were born in London, Lagos, Lima or Lahore. The world must stop wilfully neglecting the enormous benefits that accrue for everyone when girls are given an education and job.
We are driving progress towards ending all forms of violence against women and girls internationally, including sexual violence in conflict, and we are promoting women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights and supporting their economic and political empowerment. We are also hosting a conference—chaired by a former Member of this House, Nick Herbert—that will ensure that LGBT people across the world are safe and free to live the lives they wish, including lesbians and bisexual women and the specific challenges that they face.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Before the Minister moves back to the domestic sphere, I want to ask her what her Government are doing on the international front to protect women human rights activists around the world. They are standing up for the human rights of the people they represent, but they also face discrimination because of their gender.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady makes a good point about female human rights activists, and I will certainly take it away to ensure that we are doing all we can, in conjunction with the Foreign Office.
We are celebrating the achievements of women today. This does not mean being defined by being a woman, favouring women over men or being pigeonholed by outdated stereotypes. It is about defending the rights of adults to make choices, to be free to live the lives they choose and to flourish on their own terms. The Government are proud of the steps we are taking to advance the potential of women, both in levelling up opportunities here in the UK in areas such as housing, transport and childcare, and in our efforts to extend those opportunities across the world in areas such as education.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if girls are to have 12 years of education throughout the world, including in this country, we should not allow them to marry under the age of 18, because that limits what they can do? That applies in this country, not just abroad. We should be stopping it in this country too.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the damage of early marriage—it is particularly early in some countries, which I think is appalling. Of course, we will need to have that discussion as a Parliament and as a Government, but I know that she is a strong advocate for that.
We are surrounded by proof that everyone, no matter their sex, is capable of great things, and that advancing equality benefits us all. I encourage everyone here to celebrate the incredible things that women have done, and to truly recognise the intrinsic equality of men and women. Together, let us fight for that brighter future of opportunity and aspiration, where the personal fulfilment, freedom, dignity and liberty of each individual, women and men alike, are respected and defended.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I want to thank the Government for making time available for this debate—looking at the Minister, I am glad that I did not wear my pink jacket today; that would have been a little awkward.
It is important for so many reasons to have this debate on the Floor of the House. We will mark and honour the important contributions that women make, not only in this place but across society. It also gives us a dedicated opportunity in this Chamber to illustrate the structural barriers that still exist for women, and to reflect on the deaths of the women who have been killed since the last International Women’s Day debate, with the names compiled by Karen Ingala Smith and read by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
I would also like to thank Mr Speaker for continuing a tradition that I started when I first became shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, by ensuring that the International Women’s Day flag is raised across the parliamentary estate—it will be raised on Sunday and Monday to mark International Women’s Day 2020.
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Each for Equal”. An equal world is an enabled world. It is about recognising that collectively we can help to create a more equitable world. We need diverse voices and lived experiences around every decision-making table. That is not only good for society; it is also proven to be good for business.
I acknowledge that we have seen progress here in Parliament, as has been mentioned. At the 2019 general election a record number of women were elected to this House. Women now make up 34% of MPs, up from 32% in 2017. I am particularly proud that the Labour party increased its proportion of women, meaning that women MPs now outnumber male MPs in our party. One of the legacies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will be that the parliamentary Labour Party is now 51% women—which mirrors society—the shadow Cabinet is 50% women, and the most recent intake was a whopping 77% women.
For too long politics has been the preserve of a particular wealthy group in society—the old boys’ club. I am pleased that is slowly beginning to change. We in this place have a duty to lead the way. A good start would be to have a stand-alone women and equalities Department, with a full-time Secretary of State. That way, we would not have to wait a year to have a dedicated debate.
New analysis published this week by the UN reveals that across the world close to 90% of men and women hold some sort of bias against women, which provides new insights into the invisible structural barriers that women face in trying to achieve fairness. That matches recent research done here in the UK by the Fawcett Society, which found that positions of power across public life and the economy are still dominated by men. At 21%, only a fifth of senior civil servants participating in the civil service board are women. At 35%, just over a third of permanent secretaries are women, and there are no women of colour in these roles; black, Asian and minority ethnic women are concentrated in the lower ranked roles.
The Government’s race disparity audit has shown that we need to address the structural barriers that are limiting progress. In the judiciary, women make up around a quarter of those in senior positions, but the proportion falls to 17% in the Supreme Court. In the business sector, women make up just over one in 20 CEOs of FTSE 100 companies. Again, none of those CEOs is a woman of colour.
Yesterday we saw new analysis published by the TUC showing that women work for free for two months each year as a result of the gender pay gap. Fifty years since the Equal Pay Act 1970, that is still the lived reality. It shows that gender pay gap reporting needs to go much further than simply publishing; we need compulsory action plans for what companies will actively do to close the gap. The Fawcett Society’s research shows that eight in 10 men and women support women being able to find out whether they are paid less than a man for equal work. It is time to give all women the right to know. Disabled women continue to face the most significant pay gaps of all; higher than those faced by disabled men and non-disabled women. Employers must take intersectionality seriously when tackling their gender pay gaps.
The Labour party wants a workplace revolution to bring about a step change in how women are treated at work. The Government could start that process by adopting some of our policies, as they have done previously—I do not mind; they are welcome to them. They should start by enacting section 14 of the Equality Act 2010, so that people can bring forward cases on multiple grounds of discrimination. Women are more than just one-dimensional, and it is about time that the law caught up so that we can be recognised for all our intersectionalities.
How about reinstating section 40 of the Equality Act, to protect against third-party harassment? We have had this debate over and over again. It is time that was done. Section 106 would mean that all political parties would have to publish diversity data about their electoral candidates. These simple steps would make a great change in the fight for gender equality. Women deserve better pay, increased flexibility and strengthened protections against harassment and discrimination. Women deserve equal pay and equitable recognition.
Labour not winning the election was tragic for so many reasons. With a Labour Government there would have been a chance to deliver real change. Over 85% of the burden of the Tory-Lib Dem cuts has fallen on the shoulders of women. A Labour Government would have begun to undo the damage and tackle the injustice to women. In power, we would have required employers to devise and implement plans to eradicate the gender pay gap and pay inequalities. With proper enforcement mechanisms, there would have been no place for large employers to hide gender inequality in their organisations. Labour would have created extra protections for pregnant women, those going through the menopause and terminally ill workers.
Labour would have ended zero-hours contracts and strengthened the law, giving all workers the right to flexible working from day one. The Labour party would have extended statutory maternity pay from nine to 12 months, and doubled paternity leave from two to four weeks, and we would have increased statutory paternity pay. The 1950s women would have received compensation for the injustice they have suffered. Unfortunately, Labour is not in government, but what we can do at every opportunity is demand more from this Government.
If Parliament is closed because of coronavirus, that should not be an excuse for the Government to close down. We will expect daily Zoom calls, at the very least, by Ministers and the Prime Minister, to address publicly the people’s priorities, so that they can be acted upon. I hope that the Government will start to listen to people. I hope that they will have the courage to provide for women in a fair way.
The upcoming Budget provides an ideal opportunity to address the imbalance and finally give the necessary resources. I hope the Treasury will publish meaningful equality impact assessments, which have been lacking year after year, and I hope we will finally see the right level of investment in vital social infrastructure, without which we will never make sufficient progress for women.
We must not stop until we eradicate the structural inequalities in society and the violence against women and girls. Thankfully, the Government brought back the Domestic Abuse Bill earlier this week, and I pay tribute to all the campaigners who fought tirelessly to make sure that happened. I welcome the Bill, which includes a new legal obligation on councils to provide secure refuges for victims. That is progress, but we need to be certain that refuges have secure long-term funding. The Government have cut funding, and we have seen the closure of specialist services, which has affected the life chances of very vulnerable women.
I also want to see better protection for children. Although we have seen a shift in how sexual violence and harassment are discussed following the #MeToo movement, we urgently need to consider the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic women and girls. That is why the Bill needs to be amended to recognise BAME women and migrant women.
I hosted an event here in Parliament yesterday at which Imkaan launched its new report, “Reclaiming Voice: Minoritised Women and Sexual Violence.” It is the first report of this nature in the UK, and it specifically focuses on survivors of sexual violence and BAME women’s experience of sexual violence. We must look at the evidence in this report, and I will happily provide the Minister with a copy. As well as the report’s findings, we must listen to the voices of all women and groups and make sure that we do not leave any group behind.
Violence against women and girls is unacceptable, as is how women are treated in the criminal justice system. The number of women in prison has more than doubled since 1993. There are around 2,400 more women in prison today than in 1993, which is disturbing. We know women account for a disproportionate number of self-harm incidents in prison, despite making up only 5% of the total prison population. Almost 60% of women in custody or supervised in the community have experienced domestic violence. That figure is too high, and we need to do more to address it. As a former magistrate, I have seen the failures of the justice system towards vulnerable women, and it needs to be looked at.
Last year, the UK fell six places in the global rankings of gender equality. It is simply not acceptable that we dropped from being the 15th most equal nation in the world to the 21st. I want to be up there with the likes of Iceland, Norway and Finland. It is time the Government woke up, fixed up and took on board some of the progressive agenda of those countries.
This year, on International Women’s Day, let us celebrate and unite, let us support each other and let us elevate and empower all women. No more excuses, no more reports, let us get equality done. The time for audits, reviews, roundtables and gender pay gaps is over. What we need now is action. We cannot wait another 50 years to see progress. Let us make 2020 the year that we have the vision to deliver for all women.
I end with a quote from Sojourner Truth, the most powerful advocate for human rights in the 19th century:
“If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.”
I say that the men better watch out.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I also thank the Leader of the House for granting Government time for this debate. We are, of course, in quite interesting times. This debate is normally granted by the Backbench Business Committee, but I found myself with no Committee to which to apply for time for this debate, so I appreciate the efforts of my right hon. Friend to find this time today. I extend my thanks to the hon. Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who joined me in advocating for having this debate at the right time.
It is also a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). She spoke about intersectionality, and my first contribution in any public forum as, at that time, Chair-elect of the Women and Equalities Committee was at a meeting hosted by the Fawcett Society on how discrimination against women is exacerbated for women from a black or minority ethnic background and for women with a disability. The one point the hon. Lady did not mention is that discrimination is also exacerbated by age. Older women are, of course, among the most invisible in society.
We will hear many powerful contributions to this debate, perhaps particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. She will again make a powerful, moving and, frankly, horrific contribution. Each year, on International Women’s Day, we reflect again on those women who have been a victim of their partner’s violence during the previous 12 months. It is appalling, and I want the numbers to go down. I want there to be a year when she can stand and celebrate International Women’s Day without a single name to read out. We are not there yet. Indeed, we are a long way from it, and perhaps we will never get there, but we have to keep moving forward with important measures like the Domestic Abuse Bill, which we must pass in this Parliament.
I remember being in the Chamber when the Bill was debated last year, and I remember the frustration that a general election came along and the Bill did not make progress. We have no excuses this time.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her speech. She is right to highlight the appalling incidence of domestic abuse still disproportionately suffered by women. Does she agree that that underlies much of women’s offending behaviour? Will she join me in asking the Government to clearly link their domestic abuse strategy with their female offender strategy so that women who end up in the penal system as a result of having been a victim of abuse have their needs properly addressed in the criminal justice system?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is, of course, right to point out the link between domestic abuse and women too often ending up in the penal system. I am somewhat surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) is not here, because she has frequently raised with me the issue of women in the justice system and what more we have to do to assist them and to avoid them ending up there in the first place.
This debate is a chance to look backwards as well as forwards, and to consider whether the previous 12 months have been good for women. I have supported, promoted and, indeed, celebrated measures in this House but, as Charles Dickens might have said, they have been the best of times and the worst of times. It is odd for somebody from Southampton to quote a man from Portsmouth—those who are not from the south coast will not understand what I mean—but it accurately sums up the progress we have made and the setbacks there have been.
I vividly remember when the Domestic Abuse Bill was first introduced, when we heard the fantastic, powerful and horrendous contribution from the hon. Member for Canterbury. I also remember the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—I was sitting directly behind him, and it will forever be seared in my mind—about Natalie Connolly and the horrendous defence we see used increasingly often in domestic abuse and murder trials that rough sex is something women victims enjoy. There should be no place for such a defence.
Last year we did see the introduction of stalking protection orders, which are designed to protect the victims of stalking, the vast majority of whom are women. The crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 4.9 million adults in England and Wales have experienced stalking or harassment in their lifetime, and women are twice as likely to experience stalking, with mixed-race women and those aged 20 to 24 at greatest risk.
The law was changed last year so that upskirting offenders can be arrested and sent to prison. Some of us felt that legislation was unduly delayed, and, of course, there were some interesting lingerie-led protests.
My right hon. Friend the former Member for Richmond Park, now a noble lord, secured a strengthening of the law on female genital mutilation. I know my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cares deeply about the issue, and I am pleased to hear the Minister for Women and Equalities mention it today. As Immigration Minister, I worked hard to keep out of this country people who advocated FGM. I was appalled when I heard the deployment of the phrase, “It is only a little bit of cutting.” No, it is child abuse, it is illegal and there should be no place in this country for people who are the proponents of FGM.
Outside the world of politics, we saw last October the first all-female spacewalk, and last month Christina Koch returned from the longest single spaceflight by a woman. She spent 328 days in space, an incredible period, and she is one of those fabulous role models that we have for young women everywhere. Dina Asher-Smith, in Doha, scooped silver in the 100 metres, gold in the 200 metres and silver in the relay, becoming the first Brit to win three medals at a major championship, Simone Biles continued being one of the greatest women athletes ever, racking up medal after medal at the world gymnastics championships in Stuttgart, and Jade Jones added her first world taekwondo title to her double Olympic gold. Of course there are those who cannot bear to watch female athletes and make offensive comparisons. To them I say that I would like to see them compete with Sarah Storey, who achieved her 35th world para-cycling title.
On pay, there have been some triumphs, although I would argue that they are not wins—they are merely fairness. Samira Ahmed won her case against the BBC in January this year, but we all know there is a long way to go. Gender pay gap reporting has shone a light on disparity, but we know that some Departments have gone backwards and the disparity is greater today than it was this time last year. Perhaps when the Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—responds, she will be able to give us an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely committed to closing the gender pay gap. In this place, we have done better—
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with everything that the right hon. Lady is saying in her speech, and I congratulate her on becoming Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. Will she meet me so that we can plot together to use the forthcoming employment Bill as an opportunity to bring in new tougher laws to narrow the gender pay gap? Although in law it is illegal, the yawning pay gap persists. We can use that Bill to toughen up the law. Shall we work together on that?
Caroline Nokes
I believe the right hon. and learned Lady, the Mother of the House, is working on a number of issues on which she and I would find common ground. I am always delighted to meet her to work out how we can continue to do better. The Women and Equalities Committee has only met for the first time this week, but it has a number of priorities it wishes to look at. One of my contentions was that the gender pay gap should be a recurrent issue that we revisit annually, giving Ministers the opportunity to come before the Committee to explain to us how the Government have been making progress, or perhaps otherwise, on closing that yawning gap.
As I was saying, in this place we have done better. The Secretary of State and the shadow Minister both mentioned that there are now more women MPs than ever before; 34% of all MPs are women, and that is a great deal better than the situation was in 2010 when I arrived. I recall that when I joined the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) pointed out to me that when she came in here in 2005 there had been only 17 Conservative women MPs. There was a massive jump in 2010. From last year’s election, this Parliament did do better, but on this side of the House we are still a long way short of 50%. I cannot help but mourn the departure of people such as Amber Rudd, Claire Perry O’Neill, Caroline Spelman, Baroness Morgan, Justine Greening, Anne Milton, Margot James, Sarah Newton and Seema Kennedy, many of whom came in at the same election as me in 2010. But I am delighted to see new Members here, and I know that in time they will rise to the dizzy heights that those female colleagues whom I mentioned rose to. I know that they will come to love this place, be promoted and contribute a great deal.
I believe I am correct in saying that across all Government payroll positions we are now just shy of 50:50. But—and it is a big but—has that percentage been reached by putting women on to the first rung, the unpaid payroll? If so, what on earth has that done to the gender pay gap in government, when 73% of the Cabinet are men and 45% of Parliamentary Private Secretary positions are filled by women who are not paid. So I think we have some things to celebrate and some that I simply cannot. I am saddened that the men in grey suits went after a woman Prime Minister—again. I am genuinely saddened that the Labour party looks unlikely to elect a woman leader—again—although I am the first to acknowledge that polls can be wrong. I wish every female candidate left in that race luck, and indeed those who are in the contest to become deputy leader. Having mentioned a string of Conservative colleagues who have left this House in the past 12 months, I should say that I also miss Luciana Berger, Ruth Smeeth and Angela Smith, to name just a very few. In this place, there has always been, and I hope there always will be, solidarity and sisterhood across the House. Some of the best advice I ever received in this place came from Joan Ruddock, way back in 2010, when I was a newbie and she was something of a grande dame of the Labour party. I refer to her as a grande dame as a term of affection, although I note that Quentin Letts now refers to me as a grande dame and I am not sure it is meant to be complimentary at all.
What we have certainly seen over the past year is an intensification of the harassment, bullying and torment of female politicians on social media. One of my local papers, the Andover Advertiser, asked me this week to provide some commentary ahead of International Women’s Day, and I found myself speaking of resilience. There are days when I hate the fact that I have to be as tough as I am. I always describe myself as having the hide of a rhinoceros, which is sometimes useful when dealing with constituents, particularly the ones who think it is okay to email me to tell me that I am a “tiresome underachieving woman”. I am sure they think they are getting somewhere with their comments, but I always prefer to laugh at them, envisaging a chap of a certain age, undoubtedly as red in the face as he is in the trousers, as he bangs his keyboard with venom. I joke, but it is not a laughing matter, and I know that I get off extremely lightly compared with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). For those new to the House, let me say that the “mute” and “block” buttons are your friends, and that by being here you achieve more every single day than your fiercest keyboard warrior critic ever will.
On press commentary, it was only last week that we had the celebration of 100 years of women journalists in the Press Gallery. Miss Marguerite Cody was the first woman ever to report from Parliament, but today there are still too few women who look down on us from the press seats. The faces we see are still predominantly male, some not in the first flush of youth, and for good reporting we need diverse reporting, even when we might find the commentary uncomfortable. I have no doubt that women do ask the toughest questions but also the fair ones. I use as an example the fact that no woman journalist has ever asked me what my dad thinks.
I turn to the role I now hold as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee—what a great position and opportunity. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, steered the Committee through its first five years, and I am very conscious that I have a difficult pair of shoes to fill. I suspect, however, that with size 8 feet I can more than manage it. She rightly mentioned the lack of statues of inspirational women in our country. There is no shortage of women role models, but there is a shortage of tributes to them through the arts and through culture. It is brilliant that in her constituency we now have a statue of Jane Austen, but I am struck by the fact that my constituency was the home of Florence Nightingale. She was a very modest woman who demanded that there should be no tribute to her when she died. Her grave is in the same village as I live in and it does not even have her name on it—it has her initials only. I look forward to going in a few months’ time to the unveiling of a stained glass window in Romsey abbey, which was deliberately moved away from the church in which she is buried but absolutely reflects the importance she had as a woman, as a scientist and, given the way she worked with government, as a politician—this was someone born 200 years ago.
Although the Women and Equalities Committee met in this Parliament for the first time yesterday, so it is still very fresh, there was no shortage of ideas. There was also a commitment to conclude in this Parliament some of the work started by the predecessor Committee in the last Parliament and curtailed because of the December election. We will in turn form our own priorities and set our own agenda, but some of that will be to return to the gender pay gap to benchmark progress. There is a serious job to do in scrutinising the performance of Government against their own objectives, and we will do that with determination and commitment.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Amuna anga andig wiririria usiku watha. I know it is unlikely anyone here understands what I said—if they do, I hope they will not tell everybody I pronounced it incorrectly —but I will come back to it at the end and explain why I said it.
The 8th of March is International Women’s Day. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is also my birthday.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is an international woman.
Anne McLaughlin
I am an international woman.
For many years, I had my niece and nephew believing that the day was named in honour of me. They were wide-eyed at the celebrations the world over—all for me. At the same time, I regularly adjusted my age for them, so it was a bit of a running joke that I could not face up to reaching the upper stages of my youth. It all came unstuck for me in 2011, when the world marked 100 years of International Women’s Day. They found it amusing to discover that I was around more than 100 years ago.
There are some lessons in there somewhere, and one of them is about age. As we celebrate women, let us celebrate all women and note those who often face barriers in addition to those presented by their gender. That might be for any number of reasons: race, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, income and, yes, age. Age International reports that nearly a quarter of the world’s women are over the age of 50, yet they are routinely excluded from policy and practice that aims to address gender inequality and violence against women, including sexual violence.
We, and I include myself in this, also need to stop talking about age as if it were a bad thing—it is clearly better than any other alternative. We talk as if women, in particular, are past it once they reach a certain age—a certain age I have yet to reach, obviously. While we are talking about age, let us not forget the regular exclusion of young women from the policy-making process.
International Women’s Day is not just about looking at barriers and inequality. As we have heard, it is also about celebrating successes and the barriers that have been overcome. However, until we have true equality in every walk of life and in every sense of the word, we have to keep talking about why we do not have equal opportunities in this life. So today I want to do three things. I want to read out a roll-call of just some of the women who inspire me. I also want to talk about some fundamental barriers facing women and how our male allies can help break them down, and I will end by asking two things of the Government. That will allow me to explain why I started off speaking in a different language.
On the roll-call, I sometimes think we have our famous women we pay tribute to, and then we have our so-called ordinary women. I am just going to mix them up and read a list of women who inspire me. Some are constituents, but they are by no means the only woman in my constituency who inspire me—I would need the entire debate to mention them all. The women are Mary Seacole, Helen Carroll, Marie Curie, Winnie Ewing, Mags Watson, Gemma Coyle, Rosa Parks, Mary Hunter, Marie Stopes, Janet Connor, Harriet Tubman, Laura Clark, Bessie Watson, Josephine McCusker, Catherine Yuill, Tracy Pender, Donna Henderson and, finally—I am going to say something about the last one—Chief Theresa Kachindamoto, also known in Malawi as the marriage terminator. She became the chief of over 900,000 people and immediately dissolved the child marriages of 3,000 girls. I like the name “the marriage terminator”. I want those on the list who are still with us to know that they inspire me. If they do not know why, I will tell them when I see them.
The second thing I want to talk about is the fundamental barriers facing women. I want to say a bit about how I came rather late in life to understand the barriers that I face because of my gender, in the hope that it will help others who want to understand. I am not going to talk about children and childcare. It is an obvious, although necessary, matter to refer to, but it sometimes allows people to simplify the issue. It allows those who regularly ask, “When’s International Men’s Day?” to argue that women who have full childcare or who have no children are barrier-free, and that is just not the case. I do not have children, so I cannot say that childcare duties prevent me from doing some of the things I want to do, but for my entire life I have experienced the fundamental barriers that almost all women experience—I just did not know that that is what it was.
Many of my peers were elected long before I ever was. I thought that that was because they were better, that I would not be that good anyway and that politics was not for the likes of me. I also did not like the combative and competitive nature of party politics, so if there was an internal battle for selection, I just refused to put myself forward. I remember my friend Shona Robison, who went on to be the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport in the Scottish Government, phoning me and saying, “It’s the first Scottish Parliament, Anne. We need more women. Why don’t you stand?” I just point-blank refused. No matter how much she encouraged me, and no matter how she tried to persuade me, I told her it was not for me.
I believed that the thing holding me back was me and my lack of ability, but I was not lacking in ability, and it was Nicola Sturgeon who opened my eyes to that. We were talking about gender balance mechanisms, and I said what I have heard many women say: “I would only ever want to get somewhere on merit.” She said, “Well, that’s fine—if all the men you see elected are there on merit alone too. Until they are, we need these gender balance mechanisms.” That got me thinking, and it set me on a path where I ended up spending the last two years working in different countries, mainly trying to get more women into politics. I made that argument about merit, and I could see other women’s eyes opening.
I also used something else Nicola pointed out to me that day: ask a man to tell you three things he is really good at, and he will. He is quite right to do that, because you have asked him to do it, but if we ask a woman to do the same, most women—of course, I am generalising, but I think we can use general points here—will start by telling us what they are not good at, and I could list many more than three.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful argument. One thing we should be doing is giving women the licence to try, fail and come back to something. So many of us will not put our names forward; we are afraid of failing. We are told that if we fail once, that is it. All of us need to be fairer on ourselves and fairer on each other to encourage people to come forward.
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely agree. I was just going on to say that even when we cajole some women and say, “Come on, just tell me something you’re good at,” they will say things like, “Well, my friends think I am quite good at—” It is very difficult to get things out of them.
It is all to do with conditioning. Boys are brought up, on the whole, to be ambitious, bold and confident and to expect to be important in life. Girls are brought up to look after everyone else, including those important men, to be the peacemakers and to look pretty. How many times, when we meet a little girl, is the first thing we say to her that she looks really pretty? How many times do we say to a little boy how clever he is? Clearly that girl will grow up judging herself on how she looks or how she does not look, and the boy will focus on being clever and running the world.
I am not talking just about parents, although they obviously have an influence. I was brought up by two parents who regularly drummed into me that I was as good as anyone else—no better, no worse, but as good as. I was encouraged by them to conquer the world, but not by the society I grew up in. The influences around us, such as the media, teachers and other people involved in a child’s life, can be really powerful, so I was really impressed to read that the Scottish Government last month held the first meeting of a taskforce to tackle gender stereotyping in the classroom. We need a lot more of that.
The other thing we women need is our male allies. I am happy to say that there are many in here. There are many on the SNP Benches, and many in my own life. I want to make one suggestion about how men in politics can be our allies on a practical level, but before I do, I want to go back to the issue of conditioning and to acknowledge that not all the conditioning that boys receive is positive. One area where girls and women fare better is talking about emotions. We are allowed to do that, but boys and men are not. When I talk about conditioning, it is not to suggest that we get it right with boys either.
What can our male allies do to support women in politics? I did quite a bit of work last year in the Gambia to support political parties to get more women, among other groups, involved in politics. Almost every female political activist told me she needed training in public speaking, but I spotted something far more fundamental, which I have spotted in other countries, including our own. Many of the women were not even speaking in the small roundtable party meetings; those who did regularly had their sentences finished for them, and they accepted that. I am not singling out the Gambia, because mansplaining is a worldwide phenomenon, as we all know. I realised that I had work to do with the women on how to make their voices heard on a more fundamental level. I also recognised that I had work to do with the men. It is like all forms of unconscious bias: most people do not intend to practise bias. Most men would likely be horrified if they discovered that they were creating barriers.
The one thing that men can do is to look at their behaviour in meetings. They need to recognise that just because a woman says nothing or little in a meeting does not mean that she has nothing or little to say. It is simply that we often communicate differently. We are also often surrounded by very confident men who have a lot to say, and that is absolutely acceptable, but our voice inside starts to tell us to doubt the validity of what we were going to say. Women MPs may hide it well, but we are not immune to this behaviour. For example, right now, my pages are covered with notes saying, “Cut, if they are bored.” “Cut, if they are bored.” And, “Cut, if they are bored.” I had assumed that people would be bored and that I would have been talking for too long. Perhaps I am, but I am going to force myself not to cut my speech, if that is alright with you, Madam Deputy Speaker—yes, it looks like it is okay.
I am not just talking about women MPs; I am talking about people who come into Parliament for meetings with us. I am talking about our party members. I am talking about support staff. I have lost count of the number of times that I have left a meeting and been approached by a woman who did not speak a single word and who starts talking to me on a one-to-one basis and giving me some really important and interesting information. Therefore, one thing that our male allies, and also other women, can do is invite individuals to speak and not allow their sentences to be finished for them.
I did some training with women MPs—they were, in fact, Deputy Speakers—in Nepal this time last year. I was there to help them get media coverage, because the male MPs were getting it all. I turned up at the conference hall and it was half full of men. They had heard about the training—this is the male MPs—and they felt put out that they had been excluded. The women felt sorry for them and invited them to join the session, but it changed the entire dynamic and had I not found ways to work around it, it would have defeated the purpose of my being there at all.
I think it would be helpful to say how it changed the dynamic. When I was trying to establish what holds women MPs back from engaging with the media, I asked a number of questions. One was, “Hands up if you ever feel that what you have to say to a journalist is probably not that important after all.” Not one woman put her hand up, but I knew from speaking to them privately that most of them did experience that self-doubt; they just did not want to talk about it in a roomful of confident men. Some men put their hands up, but it was to tell me how vitally important their stories were to the media. Therefore, they gave me the opposite of what I was asking. As I have said, I found ways around that and one was to say, “May I take the first three responses from women, please?” That works in a larger setting. It is something that I have seen male allies do. In the more intimate setting of a round-table meeting, I ask men to please just remember that a woman who is saying nothing is not doing so because she has nothing to say.
Finally, I conclude with two asks of the Government. I spent recess in Malawi. As an aside, just because so many women have mentioned this, let me say that I went on a constituency visit with an MP, and her MP colleague gave the most passionate speech to hundreds of people about why they should retain her—there is a campaign called “Retain Her Malawi”. I thought that it was really nice that these two women in the same party were supporting each other. But they were not in the same party at all—it was the equivalent of my going along to a constituency in Scotland with a Conservative or a Labour MP, saying that they must vote for her next time. It was really interesting to watch the way that the women in that caucus supported each other.
Members will see that I have a piece of cloth wrapped around me. It was given to me by Linga, Oxfam’s Malawi director. I was in Malawi, as I have said, for the women’s caucus conference for all 44 women MPs in Malawi—23% of its Parliament is now made up by women. The conference was organised by Oxfam and supported by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The cloth is printed with the words, “Take action, say no to violence against women.” A lot of good work is going on in Malawi, much of it funded by both the Scottish and the UK Governments, so that is fantastic.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is speaking passionately about Malawi. I have also visited Malawi and spent time with women’s organisations doing fantastic work. If she has been in Malawi, she will know the impact that HIV/AIDS has had. AIDS is still the leading cause of death for women between 15 and 49 worldwide. UNAIDS has released a report today highlighting the gendered nature of HIV/AIDS for women. Does she agree that we need to do all we can through our aid budget to tackle that?
Anne McLaughlin
I could not possibly disagree with that. Yes, I absolutely do agree with that. There was a lot of talk about how the country will tackle HIV/AIDS.
There is a big focus, funded largely by ourselves, on ending violence against women and girls. My ask of the Government is: what has happened to the Istanbul convention? Many will remember former SNP MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford, who served in this House for many years. Her private Member’s Bill was passed by this House, yet here we are almost three years later and nothing has been done. This week the Domestic Abuse Bill was reintroduced, but, I think I am right in saying, without provisions for ratification. Why is that? What is the delay?
I started my speech with these words: Amuna anga andig wiririria usiku watha. I was attempting to speak in Chichewa, one of the official languages of Malawi. The point that I am making is that I have a lot of constituents, mainly women, who cannot speak English, or if they can, it is limited, and when people are in distress, it becomes even more limited. If I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I could pick up the phone to the Scottish Parliament interpretation service, put my constituent on the phone and someone would establish what language they were speaking and an interpreter would be made available. Westminster offers no such service that I know of. Often, the issues are Home Office-related. That is further complicated by the fact that the Home Office point-blank refuses to communicate with Members of the Scottish Parliament. If anyone needs that service, it is MPs. Right now, if I need interpretation, I fall back on the fantastic national organisation, Saheliya, led by another inspirational woman, Alison Davis, but that service is by appointment only. May I appeal to the Minister and the Government, to look at setting up that initial telephone service so that people—mainly women, often women in danger—can access support from their Member of Parliament in the same way that any other women can expect to?
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) with her passion and her verve and her ability to speak Malawian—if that indeed is the language that they speak in Malawi.
I wish to start my contribution by thanking the Leader of the House, who has done something very important today. He has allowed us to hold this debate in Government time. I hope that that is a trend for the future, because, while I have huge respect for the Backbench Business Committee and the work that it does, this debate should be held in Government time as it shows a recognition of, and a respect for, the importance of the things that come out of this debate.
I look forward to International Women’s Day every year, but I would like to share with the House that this is not only for the opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women, but because as well as being the birthday of the hon. Member for Glasgow North-East, it is the birthday of my youngest child, James. Year after year, that has caused enormous conflict in my household. This year, he is now 18 and an adult. I hope that Members and others can forgive me for not supporting the rally on Sunday, as I will be taking him out for a slap-up meal and perhaps a pint of beer to celebrate the fact that he is now a fully-fledged adult.
When we celebrate International Women’s Day, it is important to acknowledge that many young men, and older ones too, struggle with discrimination—ageism, perhaps because they are also LGBT, or because they may be disabled—but this does not take away the importance of having this opportunity to celebrate women and girls, their contribution and the challenges that they still face, both here and across the globe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has demonstrated that International Men’s Day provides a great opportunity for men to talk about the issues that they face. I hope that the respect for this particular event, International Women’s Day, and the debate around it is seen for the opportunity that it is—to debate the achievements of women. And celebrate them we should. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the new Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee —on which I congratulate her—is absolutely right that we should celebrate. We should celebrate the record numbers of women in work, the record numbers of women in Parliament, and now the record number of women who are graduating from our universities with the best degrees. More women than men are actually now graduating with science-based degrees, which is showing some progress, the foundations of which were sown very early on in 2010 when the Conservative Government was first formed. Some of that real progress is due to the very hard work of hon. and right hon. Members sitting in the Chamber today.
But many of the women who we are inspired by as constituency Members of Parliament do not sit on these green Benches and do not fill the history books; they are women who do extraordinary things day in, day out to make our communities better places in which to live. I would like to give the House three examples from my part of Hampshire. Diane Taylor, the mayor of Basingstoke, is an extraordinary woman of compassion and of support for our community. Catherine Waters-Clark set up the fantastic local charity Inspero and has taken it to being an award-winning charity in a handful of years. And most of all—I think other Hampshire Members may agree with me on this—I pay tribute to Olivia Pinkney, who is our chief constable in Hampshire and is one of a very small number of female chief constables in the whole country. On a day like this, we should remember those inspiring women, who have pushed the barriers, gone that extra mile and made our communities even better places in which to live.
Let me touch on the role of Parliament. As a legislative body, we have a duty to scrutinise the effectiveness of Government policy to ensure, as the Minister said in her opening statement, that everybody has the opportunity to live the life they choose—that people are carried by their ideas, character and talent, and not held back by their gender. Of course, she is entirely right. It is right that we now have a Select Committee to scrutinise those policies formally every week of the year, but International Women’s Day gives us another channel of scrutiny and another way in which to throw a sharp light on the issues that women need us to address.
The number of events in Parliament has grown organically every year that I have been here, and this year there has been an opportunity to take part in some extraordinary events, including a fantastic exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall called “Motherworks”, masterminded by Fiona Freund and showcasing the dazzling capabilities of working mums. With the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security, I have been able to meet incredible women on the frontline of fighting for women’s rights in countries such as Syria and Nigeria. I have been privileged to be able to launch Birmingham University business school’s fathers in the workplace toolkit—because if we do not get it right for dads, we will never get it right for mums—and last night to have been at the launch of Plan International UK’s call for action for young women living in conflict areas.
Does Parliament actually have an opportunity to do a bit more? There is a strong argument that the parts that make up International Women’s Week, as I think it has become, would be stronger if we tried to knit them together to demonstrate this Parliament’s significant commitment to International Women’s Day. Perhaps we could bring events together in a more coherent programme, and—as we are now no longer members of the EU—use it as an opportunity to be keep in close contact with some of our colleagues across our neighbouring European countries. We have inspiring women in Parliament, in business, in medicine and in teaching, and International Women’s Day is an opportunity for us, as a body, to play our part in showcasing their talents in order to inspire the next generation. I hope that, as parliamentary colleagues, we might think about how we can make this event an even more significant part of the parliamentary diary. We could continue to support the excellent work of 50:50 Parliament, as I know many of us do, and we could involve more young people—and perhaps some old people as well—in thinking about being a Member of Parliament as part of their life work.
So where does the challenge really lie? Today—indeed, this week—is all about celebrating women, but it is also about being honest about the challenges still faced. I agree with the Minister that there should be intrinsic equity for men and women, but there is not because of the attitudes and culture that still prevail in this country and across the globe. It is important that the Government recognise that, because it is the reality of women’s lives. The Minister’s vision is inspiring, but the reality can sometimes be less so. One of the strengths of having a Women and Equalities Committee is the work that we are now able to do to amass the evidence and see what needs to be acted on. I will focus the remainder of my comments on three specific challenges that I passionately feel need addressing.
The first challenge is that although we may have record numbers of women in work, too many still do not reach their full potential. As a country facing challenges with our productivity levels, we have to take that very seriously indeed. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving childcare—the 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and the commitment to more investment in wraparound care, are hugely important—but there are three elements that we have to fix if we are going to enable women really to reach their full potential at work as we need them to do.
First, there is a lack of quality flexible working, despite the Government’s policy to encourage businesses in that area. Secondly, we need to tackle the fact that women are being discriminated against simply because they are pregnant or new mums. Many hundreds of women are being put in a position where they feel they need to leave their work simply because they are pregnant, and that situation has actually worsened over the last 10 years, according to the Government’s figures. The third element that I really want the Government to think about in this respect—unsurprisingly, just a few days after the conviction of Harvey Weinstein—is that women are still today suffering sexual harassment at work, only to see it covered up through the use of pay-offs and non-disclosure agreements to exit them from their workplace, leaving the offending individuals in place to continue to abuse others. This is not right and it has to change. Women trust us to get it right, and at the moment we are not. We need to make all jobs flexible by default unless there are business reasons not to do so; to adopt the same protections that are in place in Germany for pregnant mums and new mums to stop women being forced out of work when they are pregnant; and to outlaw the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up allegations of sexual harassment.
The jailing of Harvey Weinstein does not solve the problem. We have to change the way in which our employment tribunal systems work for the better in order to remove the disincentives to bring forward strong cases in the first place. We also have to stop NDAs being used to cover up allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination, to put in place standard confidentiality clauses and to strengthen corporate governance. Members of the Select Committee in the last Parliament will remember the importance of insisting on the reporting up of sexual harassment cases to board level, in order to ensure that those leading our companies and institutions are aware of what is going on. I just remind colleagues of the excellent publications that the Select Committee has already produced; those reports are evidence-based, and the Government should be able to get some good ideas from them.
In short, we need to reshape jobs and the workplace because most jobs and most workplaces are still shaped around a model that has existed for hundreds of years and that too often did not fit women; and as a result, it is not working for women. I am mindful of the time, so will briefly mention the other two areas that I wanted to cover, the first of which is digital abuse.
I wholeheartedly applaud the Government’s real commitment to online reform, and the online harms White Paper was a real step in the right direction, but now we need to see the legislation. Yes, it is important to put in place a duty of care on digital platforms, but the legislation also needs to consider sexual abuse images. At the moment, we have a patchwork of legislation in areas such as upskirting and revenge pornography. We need legislation that can stand the test of time and does not need updating every time a digital platform finds a new way of abusing women through the use of sexual images. Deepfake is a very current example, and of course the issue of anonymity cannot be neglected either.
Last, but by no means least, I turn to Parliament itself. Back in 2016, when we took evidence in the Select Committee from party leaders about their aspirations for the role of women in Parliament, I was heartened that all the party leaders agreed that the House of Commons would be a better place if we had as many women here as men. We have a duty to make this place the best legislative body it can be, yet still only one in three parliamentarians is female—and, yes, the problem lies with the Conservative party. We have record numbers of women MPs. I applaud the Labour party for achieving 51% female MPs. Now we really have to examine things on the Conservative Benches as to how we can achieve a similar situation.
How confident are we that Parliament is as appealing a workplace as it can be to women? How can we make sure that it becomes a more appealing workplace for women? These are the issues that we need to think about and have to tackle. Retaining Members of Parliament—this applies to all parliamentary parties—is something we are failing to do at the moment. At the last general election, all parties lost good women who decided that this was not a place where they could work and balance their caring responsibilities. That should concern us all deeply. It is a problem for MPs to solve, not for those on the Treasury Bench to solve. It is our responsibility. With that in mind, it is crucial that this, as a place of work, works for everybody. I am delighted to be a member of the new Administration Committee, and I look forward to seeing how some of these issues can be addressed through the work of that Committee.
The Government have an ambitious policy to eliminate the gender pay gap—to level up our country, giving everybody the opportunity to be the best they can be, regardless of background. I was born in a council house and went to my local comprehensive school in south Wales, and I am proud to be the 265th woman ever to be elected to this place. The Government are right in their ambition to level up. That levelling up goes for women, too, both in work and in this place, to give everybody the opportunity to live the life they choose based on their talents, ideas and characters, and not to be held up or held back simply because they are a woman.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
As has been trailed in a number of other speeches, I rise, like I rise every year, to read the names of the women who have been murdered by men since this time last year. I am afraid to say that the statistics released recently show that this is, unfortunately, not a number that goes down but in fact a number that is going up.
So I shall start: Julie Webb, Tracey Lovell, Libby Squire, Antoinette Donnegan, Dorothy Bowyer, Laureline Garcia-Bertaux, Giselle Marimon-Herrera, Allison Marimon-Herrera, Lala Kamara, Alice Morrow, Rachel Evans, Alison McKenzie, Janette Dunbavand, Barbara Heywood, Paula Meadows, Anna Reed, Sarah Fuller, Megan Newton, Leah Fray, Saima Riaz, Sammy-Lee Lodwig, Amy Parsons, Mihrican Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Emma Faulds, Lauren Griffiths, Ellie Gould, Joanne Hamer, Mavis Long, Julia Rawson, Jayde Hall, Elizabeth McShane, Linda Treeby, Regen Tierney, Paige Gibson, Neomi Smith, Safie Xheta, Valerie Richardson, Lucy Rushton, Kelly Fauvrelle, Joanna Thompson, Ligita Kostiajeviene, Lesley Pearson, Carol Milne, Doreen Virgo, Diane Dyer, Kayleigh Hanks, Kelly-Anne Case, Dorothy Woolmer, Natalie Crichlow, Belinda Rose, Pamela Mellor, Linda Vilika, Lindsay Birbeck, Michelle Pearson, Rebecca Simpson, Alice Farquharson, Laura Rakstelyte, Sandra Samuels, Marlene McCabe, Lana Nemceva, Bethany Fields, Serafima Mashaka, Vera Hudson, Keeley Bunker, Emily Goodman, Cristina Ortiz-Lozano, Margaret Robertson, Arlene Williams, Sarah Hassell, Fatima Burathoki, Lesley Spearing, Niyat Berhane Teklemariam, Zoe Orton, Beatrice Yankson, Levi Ogden, and Tsegereda Gebremariam—who lived on the next street to the street that I live on. I saw the sirens and heard their roar, and knew I would have to read out her name. I go on: Nicola Stevenson, Mandeep Singh, Alison McBlaine, Katy Sprague, Saskia Jones, Lindsay de Feliz, Marion Price, Jolanta Jakubowska, Kayleigh Dunning, Nelly Myers, Angela Tarver, Amy Appleton, Sandra Seagrove, Vivienne Bryan, Stacey Cooper, Helen Almey, Magdalena Pacult, Katherine Bevan, Kelly Price, Beverley Denahy, Gian Kaur Bhandal, Margaret Grant, Kymberli Sweeney, Mary Haley, Cherith Van Der Ploeg, Ann Mowbray, Debbie Zurick, Li Qing Wang, and Janice Woolford.
Since Karen Ingala Smith, the woman who counts these women, sent me this list last Thursday, two further women had to be added this morning: Katrina Fletcher and Bhavini Pravin.
Also on the list are five women who were murdered alongside their friend, husband or partner: Tatiana Koudriavtsev, Layla Arezo, Jasbir Kaur, Premm Monti, and Frances Murray. I separate them from the main list, which Karen had not done when she sent it to me, because in almost all of those cases, aside from one, both the woman and her partner were murdered by their son. I often rise in this debate to talk about violent partner domestic abuse, and the vast majority of the names that I read out will have been that exact thing, but one thing that is very rarely tackled is children’s abuse of their parents. When I worked at Women’s Aid, I saw the horror of a woman dealing with an adolescent son who was abusing her and beating her. You cannot go to a refuge to get away from your child—it is impossible. We must do much more in policy to deal with that.
I could not read that list without Karen Ingala Smith and all those at The Femicide Census. She never allows us to look away from the reality of male violence towards women. In reading the list, and thinking about having to say the same thing every year, I cannot help but reflect that had these women all been murdered in terrorist incidents, had these women all died of coronavirus, or had these women all died—as I have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) say many times—at sports events over the year, there would be a huge inquiry. Had these all been terrorist deaths, the Government—not just this Government, but any Government—would stop at nothing to enact policy quickly and effectively. Cobra meetings would be held if this many people had died of coronavirus, even in that space of time. A far greater response is made to almost every other epidemic than the epidemic of male violence against women.
For every woman who has sat in front of me and has suffered this over the years, I can say that it leaves most of them feeling literally as if they are worth less—their lives are worth less. Women’s bodies—women’s lives—matter less, and the epidemic of violence against them is never considered to be a pattern or a disease in our country or around the world that requires the same will as other issues. I recognise that the Government have brought forward the Domestic Abuse Bill, and we are all pleased to see it back, but until we start hearing that list as if it were a list in another circumstance and acting with the same level of horror, knowing that we would gain the same political benefit from dealing with it as we would were it terrorism, we will never get anywhere.
Mrs Latham
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, as she does every year. She mentioned Helen Almey. My son went to school with her. If we know one of these people, it brings home to us that they are not statistics; they are real people. It is a very powerful thing that she does every year, and I congratulate her on it.
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady. Throughout the year, me and Karen often meet people who have been personally affected by one of the names on the list, and that is why we keep doing it—because these women are not statistics. They are the friends of our children. They are our children. They are the woman who lived down the road from me, who I will have walked past a million times. I hope that the list reminds people how serious this is and that, on pretty much every street and in every classroom, there will be somebody who is quietly suffering, who might one day end up on the list.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I am going to mention a lot of women, and most people in this room will not have a clue who they are, but they are important women in my life, my constituency and my community, and I make no apology for mentioning them.
I will start by challenging my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I know that Florence Nightingale is buried in Romsey, but she spent most of her time—apart from when she was nursing in the Crimea—living in Derbyshire. This year, we are celebrating 200 years since her birth. I think she would congratulate the current Government on their policy on washing hands, because she was really keen on cleanliness in the Crimea and the other places she served in. She would recognise that that is probably the best thing we can do against the coronavirus. First and foremost, I want to celebrate Florence Nightingale. We have a statue of her in Derby, and there is a lot of controversy about whether it will be moved.
Another important person in Derby and Derbyshire is Alice Wheeldon, a suffragette who was imprisoned wrongly in 1917 because it was claimed that she plotted to kill the then Prime Minister, and there is a big campaign to get that overturned. Recently we celebrated Nancy Astor—who has no connections with Derbyshire, as far as I know—making her maiden speech 100 years ago, which was very important in the progression of this country. It is important that the women in this place today celebrate those women, of whatever party, who were first in their field, because they are trailblazers for the rest of us.
Yesterday I was lucky to go to WE Day, which is one day a year run by a charity, following a whole year of social action for children. We heard inspirational speakers at Wembley arena, and two in particular resonated with many of the young people there. One was a trainee doctor—a girl who is almost deaf and almost blind. Everybody said that she could not get on to a course to become a doctor. Well, she has, and she continues to train as a doctor. She will have tremendous empathy with disabled patients and a lot of sympathy for the people she will be treating. It is brilliant that she has got on that course.
The other speaker was a Syrian refugee, who was told that because of her accent and because she was a refugee, she could not achieve virtually anything. She is training to be a pilot and working with Airbus at the moment. Those two young women were inspirational to the audience of 12,000 young people between the age of nine or 10 and 17.
Derbyshire is touched by some amazing women, not least Severn Trent chief executive Liv Garfield. The Severn Trent water authority goes through the whole of Derbyshire. Severn Trent is now on the London stock exchange. It is one of the FTSE 100, and is led by this amazing woman who goes at 1 million miles an hour. It does not matter what you ask her about her company, she can answer it. She is a pioneer, and there are many other women in the FTSE 100, but not enough. We need more women to get up to the top.
In Derby we have a lot of this country’s rail industry, which is predominantly a male bastion. There is a company in Derby called Resonate, led by Anna Ince, who is a pioneer running an organisation that combines technology and transport to optimise traffic management solutions. That sounds terribly boring, but she can transform the way that our rail works and provide other logistical travel solutions. She has taken that company from being a fairly average company to a really impressive one.
Porterbrook, which specialises in the leasing of trains, is run by a woman called Mary Grant. She is fantastic, because she has come along after a series of men, and she is changing that industry. There is Elaine Clark, who is the CEO of the Rail Forum Midlands. She is doing incredibly well in leading a series of 200 companies in the rail industry, which is male-dominated. Helen Simpson and Chandra Morbey are directors of innovation at Porterbrook, and they are the brains behind the HydroFLEX, which is the UK’s first hydrogen-powered train. Again, those are women in a very male-dominated industry.
Another male-dominated industry is printing, and yet we have Amanda Strong of Mercia Image, who has moved that printing company forward so far and is an incredibly successful chief executive. She does a lot of charity work alongside that—she is not just using it to make a lot of money; she is using some of the money for charity.
In Derby, we have a university that was very poor but is coming on in leaps and bounds. It had men running it for a long time, but it now has a very dynamic woman, Kath Mitchell, who is taking it much higher, much faster than we have ever moved before. We also have Derby College, which goes from GCSEs to hair and beauty and land-based courses, including looking after wallabies and meerkats, tarantulas and other spiders, and snakes and all sorts of things in order to train veterinary nurses in how to handle unusual animals. Mandie Stravino—again, a woman after many men—has moved that college forward so far. I have to congratulate those two women in education, who are brilliant.
In Derby, we also have the first female bishop. She did not start in Derby as the first female bishop, but she has moved to run the Derby bishopric. She is amazing, and again, she is changing the dynamics. She has a lot of women supporting her, including the suffragan bishop, the Bishop of Repton, Jan McFarlane—again, a woman.
We are finding that many women in Derbyshire are coming to the top of their profession and leading from the front, including as high sheriffs. At the moment, we have Lord Burlington, who is a very good high sheriff, but before him we had Lucy Palmer, the late Annie Hall— sadly, she drowned in the floods last year—and Liz Fothergill, who has gone on to develop the Derby book festival, which had not happened before. These people are inspirational leaders within the Derbyshire community.
Another amazing woman is Dionne Reid, who runs Women’s Work, which is trying to help prostitutes get another life so that they do not have to be prostitutes any more. At the end of the day, prostitutes are victims, and we need to give them another opportunity in life so that they can get out of that job and get a different kind of job that will be more fulfilling.
I have something of a beef with Derby because the gender pay gap there is very wide. It is much worse in Derby than in the rest of the country. I think it is about 31%, which is terrible. I would say to Derby businesses, “Listen, we’ve got some brilliant businesses and some amazing leaders, but we’ve got to do better. Get on your bikes and do better for the women in Derby!” For the women coming through to the top, we have to make sure that they have equality.
I have talked before in the Chamber about some very inspirational women who have undertaken fantastic schemes, such as Jacci Woodcock who is running the “Dying to Work” campaign, having been diagnosed with secondary breast cancer. She is unwell now, but she is still working hard to try to get as many companies as possible to sign the voluntary charter for women who have been given a terminal diagnosis and want to carry on working—not everybody does but some do, and some have to in order to pay the bills—so that they are not defined by their illness, but are seen as people, because such people are very often defined by the particular illness they have.
There is Siobhan Fennell, who is running Accessible Belper. She is in a wheelchair, and she can only drive it with her head now, but she is an inspirational person. She goes out and does training for businesses, councillors and all sorts of people to get them to recognise that accessibility is not just about wheelchair accessibility, but about how those in a shop should deal with someone with autism or dementia. There is also Fliss Goldsmith, who is another volunteer. She has two very active young children, and she has several illnesses of her own and has had multiple operations. However, she is still highly active in the arts scene, which is very important in Belper, where many other people are working to make it a much more dynamic town.
I am very lucky in that I have five grandchildren, and two of them are girls. The choices that they will have or that they have—Poppy is 16 this year, and she is doing her GCSEs—are much greater than when Nancy Astor made her first speech in this place. I hope that the girls in my family and in everybody’s family have such opportunities, as well as the boys. As the Minister said earlier, it is important that boys can also do things that are not just traditional boys’ jobs; we need to make sure that anybody can do any job whatsoever. I believe that, even in the last 25 years, the opportunities for girls have changed dramatically and they will continue to change.
Poppy has got fantastic opportunities, but the trouble with being at school is that children do not know about all the opportunities that are out there and the jobs that are out there that we see in our everyday lives—with charities, in business or whatever they are. We see an amazing number of different jobs that are never suggested at school, but Poppy has fantastic opportunities for where she is going to go when she has finished school. Whether she goes to university, does an apprenticeship or whatever she chooses to do, the world is her oyster.
For Betty, who is only five, her opportunities, even after Poppy has started work, will be completely different again. There will be many more opportunities that we probably do not even know about at this stage. I look forward to what they can achieve in their lifetimes, and to the opportunities that all girls now in school can look out for, take up, grasp and run with to become leaders in their field. I believe that young people now have such fantastic opportunities, and it is up to us to make sure that as many people as possible know what those opportunities are for young girls. However, let us not forget the boys, because they are very important. They are very important in my life—I have three grandsons—and I want them to have fantastic opportunities as well. Those opportunities are out there, and I think young people should go out and grasp them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Apsana Begum to make her maiden speech.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Jim Fitzpatrick, for his hard work and for the longevity of his public service. Jim was a firefighter before he was elected to Parliament and such is his legacy that, when I arrived at Westminster, one of the Clerks here mentioned to me that he had lent his expertise in fire safety to this House’s restoration and renewal plans. I suppose you could say, “Once a firefighter, always a firefighter”. I wish him well in his retirement.
My other east end predecessors include Labour party giants such as George Lansbury. As we debate International Women’s Day, the origins of which are rooted in working-class history—it honours the 1908 garment workers’ strike in America—I want to pay tribute to the rich history of women’s struggles for social justice in my constituency, Poplar and Limehouse. Given that George Lansbury resigned to stand for re-election on a “Votes for Women” platform, I like to think he would have approved.
I hail from the great east end, where there is a proud working class tradition and history of standing up for our rights; where low-paid women workers have so often been at the forefront of developing trade unionism; and where Sylvia Pankhurst and the East London Federation of Suffragettes were explicit in their socialism, advocating a self-organised movement and demanding much more than just charity: they demanded political rights. This is summed up in the first issue of the East London Federation of Suffragettes newspaper, The Woman’s Dreadnought, published on International Women’s Day in 1914, which stated:
“Some people say that the lives of working women are too hard and their education too small for them to become a powerful voice in winning the vote. Such people have forgotten their history.”
But we are not such people in Poplar and Limehouse. We remember women such as Minnie Lansbury, who was elected to Poplar Council in 1921 and was jailed, along with five other women, for refusing to charge full rates for her poorest constituents. We remember the role of women in the battle of Cable Street, where the local Jewish community, along with so many others, stood up to Oswald Mosley and his fascists. And we honour the women who took command during the second world war air raids, sending for the fire and rescue services and seeing about people being clothed and fed.
From the late 1960s onwards, racism was so prevalent locally that Asian and black people were frequently attacked and women were often unable to walk the streets for fear of their safety. Alliances between different communities and anti-racist organisations were built in resistance. By the 1980s, there were at least two Bengali women’s groups in Tower Hamlets, offering women social, religious and cultural activities that were instrumental in encouraging Bangladeshi women to take an active role in the area.
After a British National party councillor was elected on the Isle of Dogs, a coalition of women from diverse backgrounds formed a group, Women Unite Against Racism, as part of the wider anti-racist and anti-fascist campaign that drove the BNP out of Tower Hamlets in the 1990s. In the words of another of my predecessors, Mildred Gordon:
“Eastenders are proud people; they are fighters. They fought Mosley in Cable Street. They knew how to unite—community side by side with community—against the people who were attacking them. They stood firm during the war and they will stand firm against attacks on their way of life today.”
It is in this tradition of socialism, community solidarity and action that I address the Chamber today, having been the first British Bangladeshi woman elected as secretary of the Tower Hamlets Labour party and now the first hijab-wearing Member of Parliament.
Like many of my colleagues in Parliament, my personal journey has not been easy, but I am proud of my party’s record on progressing women’s rights and fighting for equality, and I look forward to being a part of taking this even further. The truth is that there is so much more to be done.
Poplar and Limehouse has a high percentage of people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and we know better than most that we must never again embark on illegal wars and imperialism, but should instead adopt a progressive, outward-looking global view driven by social justice, solidarity and human rights.
As someone who has first-hand experience of the rise of Islamophobia over the past decades, it is alarming that racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism in particular are growing. While the Government continue to use divisive politics, which has culminated in the hostile environment for migrants that led to the Windrush scandal, we know that the fight for justice and change is not over. I will always stand with my constituency— diverse, dynamic, multicultural, multiracial and with people of different faiths and none, and from all around the world—against intolerance, violence and division. This includes campaigning for migrant rights, including the rights of EU citizens, in Poplar and Limehouse and beyond.
I wish my father—parent to five daughters, and a forward-thinking community organiser himself—was still here to see me today, but I carry his encouragement, guidance and inspiration with me in everything that I do. Likewise, the support I have received from the people of Poplar and Limehouse, where I am proud to have been born and raised, and the trust they have put in me to be their MP, is truly humbling. I feel the weight of responsibility and duty on my shoulders, and I will fight with all my breath and energy to carry on the legacy of those who have gone before me, opposing at every step of the way the broken, failed economics that have served only to enrich the few at the expense of the many, and which far too often have left so many constituents to bear the brunt of the brutality of austerity.
While Poplar and Limehouse is an amazing place to live, it is on the frontline of the Conservative austerity attack. Local government and the vital public services they provide have been undermined by these cuts that have hit the poorest hardest, leading to the loss of key services. I am angry that we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country while being on the doorstep of one of the largest financial centres in the world. It is simply unacceptable that the diverse needs of our children are not being met. I am angry that around a fifth of the residents in my constituency are paid less than the living wage. I am angry that we struggle with a housing crisis and the near-impossible situation of having soaring monthly rents, which all too often mean people, particularly those on low incomes, are faced with an increased risk of homelessness.
The leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has achieved so much in shifting the debate on austerity and public ownership towards a vision of a fairer and more equal society. It is, however, heartbreaking that we are now faced with five more years of hardship, which will be devastating for my constituents. But so many new Labour MPs are, like me, working-class, women and from ethnic minority backgrounds, with lived experiences of the reality of people’s day-to-day lives.
The east end has always been a bedrock of diversity, resilience and resistance. It is in this spirit that I will seek to hold this Government to account over the next five years.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate, and a particular honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). I confess that until now my only insight and knowledge of her constituency was from “Call the Midwife”, so the hon. Lady has brought me up to contemporary times. I am sure she is right that her predecessor would be proud, and her father, too, and I am sure that her constituents have in her a strong defender who will make strong arguments and address the challenges she outlined today with passion. I congratulate her most warmly on her maiden speech.
While we are talking in this debate from the four corners of our United Kingdom, and indeed looking globally, I want to beg Members’ indulgence and narrow down the GPS tracker to BN23 7EA—Langney Primary School, in my wonderful home town of Eastbourne, where last week I joined the children for their equality day. They had all dressed up to match their future career ambitions and job aspirations. The Prime Minister will be pleased to learn that public services were well represented, with perhaps some future police and nurses in their number, and writers and journalists, too. There were one or two children dressed as Spiderman in the mix, so that will take some careful signposting in the years to come, and one princess, so definitely the need for a plan B there. However, at the tender age of seven, eight, nine and 10, they are being taught to believe that they are stepping out into a world of opportunities and that whoever they are—girls or boys, and whatever their background—their future is theirs and they can be whatever they want to be. Their ambitions are high, and I was hugely impressed. They grilled me later, so there were definitely one or two journalists in the mix. That is what progress looks like, and it speaks well for the future.
International Women’s Day has been celebrated for 100 years and more, and in that time tremendous change has been brokered in our nation. Women did not have the vote in the world my grandma was born into, but, in an historical blink of an eye, I have the honour of being Eastbourne’s first woman MP, again—I hope the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse does not drink from the same cup as me by tasting a defeat and then being called back to this place to make a second maiden speech; her first maiden speech was admirable and quite enough.
This is a day to mark just how far we have come since International Women’s Day began. But we are still marking it because its original aim—equality for women the world over—is still to be fulfilled. The World Economic Forum 2017 report predicts it could take another 100 years before the global equality pay gap between men and women is fully closed. That gap is most marked in lifetime pay and in political leadership. Women make up half the world’s population, yet their voices are still not heard in equal numbers in the places where decisions are made. They need to be, and our institutions need to look like the people they represent.
According to the United Nations, only 24% of all national parliamentarians are women. In the UK, 34% of House of Commons Members are women, as has been stated. However, on that front Sussex is leading the way, and East Sussex is practically Amazonian. In Sussex in 2005 a solitary one in 16 seats was represented by a woman; there was a doubling of numbers to two in 2010, and a magnificent seven in 2019. I am delighted to say that today my parliamentary next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), will be closing this important debate.
My own constituency of Eastbourne has women of influence in positions across the sectors—from the chief reporter at the Eastbourne Herald and the chief executive at the chamber of commerce to the police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne. Those women and so very many more are the important role models we need the next generation to see.
Progress is relative, of course, and problems persist; that is why debates such as this are timely. Domestic abuse in all its forms is a devastating crime that leaves people living in fear. Our PCC Katy Bourne has done tremendous work in this area, and I welcome the fact that this week the Domestic Abuse Bill was reintroduced to the House. That important legislation will protect and empower victims and see perpetrators brought to justice. I hope that it will command the support of the whole House. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out those names, I am sure that all of us here felt the full weight of the responsibility to do all we can to turn the tide and change the culture. Every one of those names represents someone’s mum, daughter, sister or cousin.
There is more, too. We know that in the UK women are much more likely to have time out for caring, which then has lasting impacts on pay and progression. Nearly 90% of those not working because of caring for home and family are women. However, more girls are going into STEM subjects, there are more women in employment and leadership, and the pay gap is closing. Despite that, the work is most certainly not done.
Sadly, there is much to do in other countries, too. Even basic access to education or the right to vote is not guaranteed for millions of women. Add to that young girls forced into marriage and female genital mutilation and we all know that there are considerable challenges ahead for too many women globally. International Women’s Day is an important marker in the sands of time. In Britain, we have come far and we can be proud of our progress towards equality. We must continue to use our influence to ensure that that progress is for every woman in every country.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to be in the Chamber to hear such powerful and interesting speeches in a debate that we agree across the House is one of the best that we have, every year. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) call International Women’s Day “feminists’ Christmas”, and one of our presents this year was the brilliant maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum).
I am going to lower the tone and mood now by talking about misogyny, I am afraid. The dictionary definition of misogyny is
“hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women”.
It comes in various forms and wears various guises—from the more subtle, everyday acts of sexism that chip away at the fragile, paper-thin walls of equality, to the cruder, more blatant, neanderthal acts that undermine half the world’s human population. Part of our job as women in Parliament is to receive it, filter it, weather it, police it, ignore it, highlight it, talk about it, help other women deal with it, tackle it so that other women do not have to, and fight it constantly with a view to eradicating it completely. But that task is not unlike having to sieve all the little bits of plastic out of our oceans.
At what point should we call it out? Should it be at the point where it starts to niggle and nag at us, something that we can just make out—a harmless little comment, a dismissal or exclusion from the conversation? Should it be in the face of never-ending mansplaining by men who know literally nothing about subjects that we are, in fact, experts in? Or should it be at the point where it stops us in our tracks, takes our breath away and fills our lungs with rage and indignation instead, such as when we see the leaders of nations treating women as second-class citizens, as less than men, as after-thoughts, commodities, arm candy and mere playthings?
Misogyny is not especially choosy. It is not confined to one particular class, specific cultures, institutions or political parties. Some may appear to be more blatantly sexist and some may appear to have made great strides in recent history—that, of course, is something to celebrate. The Labour party now has more female MPs than male ones for the first time in history. But the roots and very culture of so many organisations are so steeped in the history of men—male stories, male voices, male experience and even male portraits. It will take a lot more time and our patience will be tested quite a bit more, before we start to see and really feel meaningful change.
One place where it is not hard to find sexism and misogyny—it takes about a nano-second—is, of course, social media. The vitriol against, and hatred of, women is there for all to see. Rape threats, death threats or casual references to violence should not be commonplace, but we know that they are. It seems that any woman with almost any opinion or thought who dares to be bold enough to express it is in line for a world of fun. Brace yourselves, ladies—speaking your mind online is a bit like wearing a onesie made of raw beef while heading for a paddle in the nearest piranha tank! We do not need to have a blue tick next to our names to bring the hungriest of those piranhas to the tank, but it helps. Female politicians with a mind, some thoughts and the audacity to express them are fair game.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
As everyone in the House will know, women have been subjected to horrendous trolling and comments on social media. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must get serious about online trolling and cyber-security? They should listen to the women in this House who have been subjected to it. I have been, and it is important that women have a voice when these decisions are being made.
Rosie Duffield
Absolutely. I would welcome any such discussion in this House—and we know that the issue goes across the House; it is not just about one particular party. I thank the hon. Lady for raising the point.
Luckily, most of us here are made of pretty tough stuff: we do not usually get to this place by accident. But tough or not, our strength and mental wellbeing can be pushed to breaking point. The sinister side of the kind of serious online abuse that public figures are often subjected to can lead to some pretty dark places—from pile-ons on social media, to nasty, anonymous emails, swastikas daubed on office doors or bricks thrown through windows. But it is not all doom and gloom either. On social media, communities are speaking out for each other more and more—women making sure that those most abused feel supported and safe.
A couple of days ago, a petition with 850,000 signatures was taken to Downing Street, every one of them inspired by the hurt and pain collectively felt by the nation when we heard the terrible news of Caroline Flack’s tragic death. There is now recognition that things need to change—not just for five minutes or five months, but significantly. There can be no more terrible tragedies such as Caroline Flack’s—no more salacious gossip printed as news for our entertainment. There are real consequences. Let us follow leading broadcasters such as Iain Lee, himself so brave and honest when discussing issues such as mental health, and be kind. Kindness costs nothing, and it could actually start to save lives.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who, like many speakers today, has given us much food for thought.
We have heard from only one man in this debate so far—other than yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker—the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I want to make the observation that we are here in the United Kingdom, we pride ourselves on being a modern, civilised country, a democracy, yet too often we turn a blind eye to the kind of discrimination that we should really not tolerate in a civil society. The hon. Member for Canterbury was just sharing her observations about the wild west that is social media—frankly, all we need to do is open a Twitter account to find ourselves the focus of abuse these days. That reminded me of an occasion three or four years ago.
We had a particular problem with car cruising in my constituency. Car cruising is something that, normally, young men do when they soup up their cars. They turned the local road network in my constituency into a motor track, causing immense distress for residents, who were disturbed by the noise. It was dangerous and on numerous occasions, people who turned up as spectators at these races were injured when collisions happened. I was working with the local police to try to tackle this menace. As a result, after issuing a press release with a picture of me and the police officers attending one of these events, the whole story went viral among the male community of car cruisers. There were literally hundreds of thousands of very unpleasant comments towards me.
As we all know, we develop our own ways of managing these situations. It is quite easy to ignore it—just do not look—but these quite unpleasant messages were being circulated. It was actually the local BBC that reported the traffic to the police, because it included death threats and some very unpleasant sexual imagery and messages. In the end, two people were arrested and action was taken. What was interesting to me, however, was that the action was taken against the death threats, whereas the more unpleasant and aggressive content was that which was very misogynist and sexual in nature. When we look at that against the backdrop of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) yet again reading out the names of people who have been killed over the last year, we see that we almost seem to have accepted this as normal, and that is why no one is getting upset about it. It really should not be normal and we should use occasions such as this to call it out. I just wish that some of our male colleagues were here to participate and show solidarity with us on this, instead of making smart-arsed comments like, “Ooh, when are we having an International Men’s Day debate?” If I had a pound for every time somebody had said that to me, I would be very rich—I just leave that message on the record.
I want to talk about some of the more practical things that we can do to tackle hidden discrimination against women, in the context of health. I will also make some observations about sexual violence and how it is still commonplace for a blind eye to be turned where sexual violence is used as a tool to oppress women. Notwithstanding the conviction of Harvey Weinstein, which is obviously very welcome, it is still too common and the state needs to do more to tackle it when it arises. I will end with some observations about the debate on gender dysphoria and trans issues, which I fear has become rather ugly in recent weeks.
I had a moment of revelation when I was a Minister for health. Over a period of time, a number of colleagues from across the House would come to share their experiences with me as women accessing healthcare for various reasons. I witnessed quite a lot of distress as colleagues recounted their experiences. I had been through similar experiences and I suddenly had a moment of clarity and thought, “Crikey, we are all assertive, pushy women. We all have voices that we are prepared to use, yet we have all been diminished at the hands of medical professionals when it comes to talking about often very intimate issues.” I took it upon myself to try to do something about that.
Underlying all this is that whenever women’s bodies are being seen as incubators for babies, everything is very straightforward, but too many morbidities come from our bodies being the way they are, which frankly, are seen as an inconvenience by the health establishment, and we often suffer in silence as a result. I am appalled that one in 10 women suffers from the incredibly chronic pain and heavy bleeding associated with endometriosis. They can go for years before that is diagnosed and live incredibly difficult lives as a consequence. There has been virtually no research into the causes and possible treatments for endometriosis. Frankly, if men were suffering from it, that simply would not be the case.
One in three women suffer from fibroids, which, again, lead to heavy bleeding and terrible pain. Yet again, too often women are told to run along, that that is their lot and that that is just the way it is. The result is that we all think that our experience of a period is normal when actually, if someone is spending more than £10 a month on pain relief and sanitary protection, their period is not normal. The more that we can do to make women think about their menstrual health, so that they can take early action and get support earlier, the better, and we will do them a great deal of good. No woman should have to tolerate, or think it is normal to be, bleeding for three weeks of every month, doubled up in chronic pain and having to sit with a hot water bottle every day.
When women do get treatment for these conditions, they are generally told, “Have a baby—it will go away,” “Go on the pill” or “Have a hysterectomy.” Again, there is not enough emotional intelligence or coaxing and there are not enough ways of helping women to help themselves and to live with a condition that can bring incredible stress. We all need to do much more collectively to empower women to have sensible and constructive conversations with medical professionals. Medical professionals need to be encouraged to see the human being in front of them. This is not a criticism—medical professionals are human beings, too, and have to have ways of dealing with people in distressing conditions, but they can do much more to be understanding and have conversations that allow women to take control of their treatment.
I also make the observation that it is not that long since Viagra was licensed to treat male erectile dysfunction. People do not need a prescription now to get Viagra—they can buy it over the counter. I would really like to see such things as the contraceptive pill and hormone-replacement therapy available over the counter, too, so that women can do much more to look after their health.
To turn to the issue of sexual violence, I add my voice to those who welcome the Domestic Abuse Bill, but we also need to take on board the fact that sexual violence is often—more than often—another tool of oppression in the domestic violence context. We must not let that be taboo. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said that, too often, the issue of children committing violence against parents is taboo, and sexual violence within the domestic abuse context is also taboo. We can pass as many laws as we like, but the root of all this is behaviour and the need to challenge those behaviours. Whenever we do not shine a light on them, we are acknowledging that they are normal.
I remember when the issue of the systemic abuse in Rotherham materialised. Sitting underneath the failure to act by the local authority, the police and everyone else was a prejudice—that for this particular class of girls, what more could they expect? That was totally unacceptable. I fear that we are witnessing exactly the same thing again when we talk about gang culture and knife crime, because we are talking about gangs that are not just made up of young black men stabbing each other. There are girls associated with these gangs who are being groomed for sexual purposes, yet none of us is talking about it. It is like the lessons of Rotherham have not been recognised at all, and it is incumbent on all of us in the House to make sure that we properly address these things.
We need to do much more collectively to empower young women to value and protect themselves and not feel that they have to be pressured into sexual relationships that they do not want. It is horrifying to see the increased sexual violence against our young women now and we all need to tackle it collectively. The tabloid culture that values everyone by their appearance, figure and who they are associated with does not help. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) mentioned Caroline Flack, and it is a really good example, but there are other successful women who are abused for their inability to have relationships with men. Jennifer Aniston is one of our best comedy actresses and a worldwide star, but every time we see an article about her, it is about the fact that she could not keep Brad Pitt, or that she has had another failed marriage, or who her boyfriend is this time. It is absolutely outrageous. No woman should be defined by their relationship with a man. The same goes for Kylie Minogue. Crikey, would we not all like to be Kylie Minogue and look like Kylie Minogue? But she also gets vilified with, “How many boyfriends has she had? She can’t keep a man.” So blooming well what? A message to all the men out there—“Do you know what, us women can do very well without you, thank you very much. Think yourself lucky that some of us let you into our lives.”
The issue of Caroline Flack is particularly instructive because her life and her relationships with men were tabloid fodder. Even in her death we had to read about the fact that she went out with Harry Styles, who was however many years younger than her. Caroline Flack’s life story should be a message as to how toxic our culture has become, and how, if we are going to do something more for young women going forwards, we should encourage them to value themselves in their own identity and not through their relationships with men.
I am particularly uncomfortable that the debate around trans rights and gender dysphoria has become pitted against the rights of women. It is surely not beyond the wit of policymakers to devise a set of rules and principles that protect the rights of transsexuals to find a way of living their lives and do not discriminate against women at the same time. Those of us who want to see women-only safe spaces are not guilty of hate crime against trans people—not at all. I think people who are trans want to quietly get on with their lives. It does not help any of them that they are pitted against women in this terrible, horrible toxic debate. The only people who are winning through this debate are those men who use their power to oppress women, and see the opportunity to claim the right to self-identify as a weapon. None of us in this room should collude with that. We have already seen the case of Karen White, who self-identified as a woman, went into prison and committed crimes against fellow inmates. We must be able to devise a law that stops that happening but also supports those who are most vulnerable and need to have their rights defended.
Parliament has failed to give proper oversight of the growing number of transgender interventions for younger people. We have allowed treatments to develop at the Tavistock really unsupervised. This is no criticism of the medical professionals there, who clearly are doing their work with the best of intentions, but we need to look at the ethics of some of this and the practicalities of it. We are seeing more and more girls being referred for gender reassignment treatment. We are talking about girls well below the age of majority. I personally am very uncomfortable—well, I think it is wrong—about putting forward people for treatment that is irreversible when they are not in a position legally to give consent. We really need to be more honest about the challenges of puberty.
Puberty is horrible. I was a tomboy when I was growing up—that probably does not surprise hon. Members. When I got to my teens and suddenly felt my body changing, it was horrible. I hated every minute of it. I cannot believe what might have happened to me now, going through that. I carried on climbing trees and so on, and playing at being “CHiPs” rather than “Charlie’s Angels”, but now I would be on my iPad and I would suddenly find lots of other people who thought like me and then—guess what?—all those people are going to the Tavistock. It scares the hell out of me. I fear we are doing harm to girls when actually this is something that they could just be going through. It is quite a normal thing not to be comfortable with what is happening to our bodies. The fact that so many of the girls who are going for such treatment also have issues with autism frightens me even more.
I was contacted by a parent just this week who thanked me for something that I had said about this issue. She wanted to talk about the experience she had had with her daughter, who is on the spectrum. As she said, one of the classic symptoms of autism is that, as a sort of self-defence tactic, you become a different personality. When we think about that in the context of puberty and unhappiness with the way your body is changing, of course it is a natural response to pretend to be a different gender. I really think we have failed in this House; we have not given sufficient scrutiny and debate to a treatment which, frankly, if it is given out wrong, will do real harm to those girls and boys who go through it. I hope that this is something that we can give more attention to in future.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It was really interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). It struck me that male interests are unassailable and that misogyny can somehow be dismissed as banter. The knock-on effect of that in society is considerable. I would like to address the assumption that where the male interest lies is the social norm.
A part of me thinks that, in all honesty, we surely must regret the need for International Women’s Day. We can celebrate the fact that we are in this House, but for many women, the fact that we are holding this conversation today shows that society is riven with divisions that affect many women’s lives. To put it very simply, women are more likely than men to be in poverty, more likely to be unable to afford basic resources such as food and heating, and less likely to have savings to fall back on in hard times. The point is not that women’s poverty is worse than men’s; it is not in the quality of the experience. No one here would say that people should be living in poverty. I will couch this in rather grand academic words, and then I will try to describe it in less grand academic words: the key point is that women’s experiences of poverty are shaped by problematic gender and societal norms. I apologise for those terms, and I will try to unpick them.
There are reasons why women are poorer than men, and we here have a duty to ask why. One of the reasons, of course, is that women often still take the primary responsibility for care—we are used to these conversations. Although that is the case, it is simply not feasible for all women to lift themselves out of poverty by earning more through increasing their hours of work or securing a better paid job. The reality for many women is that their work has to fit into their caring responsibilities. Their lives include a range of responsibilities. There is not just more time to squash into the day. Their ability to work and progress is limited by the need to find a balance between working and caring.
Let us just remember some of the simple things. Women are not being paid for their work of caring for their children or their families. They never have been; it is historically women’s work. Our society defines the status of an activity with remuneration. This disregard for the worth of caring for others is echoed in the workplace. It is of course no coincidence that jobs that involve care generally—let’s face it, almost invariably they are lower-paid employment—are traditionally done by women. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the social care sector. Careworkers perform the vital work of looking after our most vulnerable people, yet their reward is to be overworked, underpaid and trapped, often in precarious zero-hours contracts. Covid-19 has thrown our dependency on careworkers into stark profile, and if there proves to be a shortage of careworkers, we might be asking ourselves why.
The immigration proposals that the Government published recently will only make the situation worse for careworkers, because of the sector’s reliance on migrant workers. In placing a greater weight on salaries than on skills, the Government will place a sector that is already overworked and understaffed under increased pressure. We have heard today about the sort of jobs that we should be encouraging women to take—the sort of “good” jobs that are generally celebrated. The Government propose to give
“top priority to those with the highest skills...scientists, engineers, academics”.
Those are sectors in which the under-representation of women is a significant issue, and that tells us all we need to know—and, to be fair, this applies not only to the Government but to society as a whole—about what we count as important jobs.
The truth is that we live in a society that values looking after machines more than looking after people. That, to me, is an extraordinary statement to make. As soon as it has been made, we know that there is something wrong with our values when we value machines more than people. Achieving equality is not about more women looking after machines, or more men being poorly paid in the care sector; it is about tackling the root causes of poverty by shifting our economic priorities towards the wellbeing of people. That is staggeringly obvious when we say it, but it is interesting that it has to be said. We can begin by establishing parity of pay between social care and healthcare staff and creating a fairer welfare system, starting—I would say this, of course—by devolving welfare to Wales so that we can sort out our own problems better, and reforming universal credit.
Let me end by saying that the goal is not simply for women to achieve equality with men, but for us to build a better society for everyone—a society in which the worth of caring for each other is so self-evident that it does not have to be put on record in this place.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I am delighted that we are holding the debate again this year. It is an important opportunity to highlight the severe challenges that are still being faced by women all over the world, but it is also an opportunity to celebrate the amazing work done by women in business, science, healthcare and education.
The speeches that we have heard so far have been very interesting, moving and inspiring, and as varied as one would expect from women MPs. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who, every year, has to read out a list of names which is far too long. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) that it is disappointing that there are not enough men here to listen to that, and also to contribute to this important debate.
As someone with a keen interest in foreign affairs and development, I also want to commend the excellent work done by, and for, women by international aid charities. Despite the risks, those charities provide women with healthcare, sanitary products, legal defence, food and water, and much more. Perhaps the bravest of all are the female human rights defenders who stand up to oppressive regimes in the face of imprisonment and torture. Those courageous women promote the right to an education, and the right to live and work free from harassment and intimidation. They deserve our complete admiration.
The right to an education is the most important thing that we can extend to women around the world. According to the World Bank, nearly a quarter of girls globally do not complete secondary education, and the number rises to two thirds in low-income countries. One third do not even get a full primary education. That means that 131 million girls worldwide do not go to school. This lack of education has so many disastrous consequences. More than 300,000 women die each year giving birth. UNESCO estimates that if all mothers completed primary education, including lessons about health and hygiene, that number would be reduced by two thirds—by more than 200,000 women each year.
Of course, it is not only the mother but the child who is at risk. If all women had a primary education, infant mortality would be reduced by 15%, and if all women had a secondary education, it would be reduced by 50%. That would save 3 million lives. Those numbers are a shocking illustration of the positive impact of even a basic education. Keeping girls at school drastically reduces the chances of their becoming pregnant as children. In many societies, youth pregnancies cause the girls in question to be forced into marriage. In Tanzania, for example, a third of girls become pregnant and get married before the age of eighteen. Having very young mothers with a limited education has a further impact on infant nutrition: 12 million fewer children would suffer from malnutrition if all women had a secondary education.
There is also the socioeconomic impact. Children whose mothers can read are twice as likely to attend school, creating a new generation of educated women who are more likely to find work and to earn more money for that work—although, as we know, equal pay for women is still some distance away, even in developed countries. The Government estimate that $28 trillion would be added to global GDP if women had the same role in the labour market as men. I am really pleased that last year the Prime Minister committed himself to £515 million of UK funding to help more than 12 million children to go to school. That will improve women’s rights and their health, and will enable them to contribute more to their communities—but of course there is much more to do.
We are aware of the impact that educated women can have. I think of Benazir Bhutto, who had one of the best educations imaginable—some of it in this country—and went on to smash the glass ceiling in Pakistan. I think of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia and the first female democratically elected leader of an African country. Less well known, but close to my heart, is Huda al-Sarari, a Yemeni lawyer who has lived and worked in the country for the last 15 years. Her writing has exposed the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and exposed potential war crimes. All that has been done in the face of aggressive and highly conservative militia groups who try to silence women, often by using violence.
The benefits of educating women are relatively widely known, but I want to speak about an aspect that is rarely discussed: the role of women in bringing about peace. Northern Ireland provides a fantastic example of that. In 1996 two women, Monica McWilliams and May Blood, came together to form the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, which was one of the few groups to bring together Protestants and Catholics. In doing so, they won enough support in the public election of 1996 to earn seats around the negotiating table during the peace talks. Because they represented both communities, they were seen as a reliable channel between the opposing sides. In that role, they facilitated and helped to shape the Good Friday agreement in 1998.
Sadly, however, that model has not been embraced in subsequent peace negotiations. In major peace processes between 1992 and 2018, women made up only 3% of mediators, 4% of signatories and 13% of negotiators, and the majority of peace agreements included no female signatories at all. Astoundingly, only two women in history, Miriam Coronel-Ferer and Tzipi Livni, have served as chief negotiators, and only one has ever signed a final peace accord as chief negotiator. More than 80% of agreements make no reference to women at all.
This is bad, not just for women but for all of us. Research shows that peace treaties are 64% less likely to fail with the participation of women’s groups, and agreements involving women are 35% more likely to last for at least 15 years. The World Bank finds that higher levels of gender equality are associated with a lower tendency towards conflict—well, of course they are. While men are more likely, sometimes unwillingly, to serve as soldiers and to die in fighting, women are made the mourning mothers and widows left at home. A society that values the opinions and votes of those women will always be more averse to warfare, so getting more women involved in peace, whether at grassroots or at negotiations, must be a priority. This is not a new revelation. President Johnson Sirleaf and fellow Liberian Leymah Gbowee won the Nobel peace prize in 2011 in part for their struggle for women’s right to full participation in peacebuilding work. Despite their example, we are still a long way off giving women the role they deserve and need in peace efforts.
That said, I am delighted that this is an area where the UK Government are taking a lead. The UK national action plan on women, peace and security was published in 2018, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary. Of the seven strategic outcomes in the plan, the first two are about increasing women’s participation in decision making and peacekeeping. There is much more to do, but I am very glad that the lack of women’s representation in peace making has not only been recognised but rectified. The Government should push ahead with this bold agenda, because all of us will benefit as a result.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for reading out that list again. Very sadly, one of my constituents, Libby Squire, was on that list. She was a young woman at Hull University, at the very start of her university career. It is an appalling tragedy that she—and all the other women, of course—is on that list.
I was very pleased to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). I was a councillor in Tower Hamlets for eight years, and I recall very well the rise of the British National party, and the community coming together to crush it back in 1994. She spoke very well about the women’s involvement in Cable Street, and about the suffragettes in the east end. I am sure she will also recall the important role that the matchwomen played as grandmothers of the Labour movement—and, I think, of the Labour party. I notice that a number of us are wearing ribbons to mark the matchwomen’s strike in 1888.
I want to take this opportunity to celebrate the amazing politicians and activists who have been fighting for so long to change the injustice in Northern Ireland around abortion law. In particular, I have to mention my remarkable hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Someone once said to me that MP should stand for “must persevere”, and the perseverance that my hon. Friend has shown is remarkable. I pay great tribute to her, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), and to Baroness Barker in the other place. Those changes, which will be introduced in the next few weeks, will help us in this place to think again about the law that currently applies, the Abortion Act 1967, which I think is due for a review.
We all know that the last few years have been very difficult for all MPs, but particularly women MPs, given the insults, threats and behaviours we have faced—behaviours that, when I came to this place in 2005, I had not really experienced. The last few years have been very difficult, and of course there was the tragic murder of our good friend Jo Cox. However, I know that many women around the world who put themselves forward to be politicians, journalists or human rights defenders face harassment, intimidation and victimisation daily.
Hillary Clinton coined the phrase,
“human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights”.
As it is International Women’s Day, I want to mention a few incredibly brave women around the world, and ask the Government what they are will do to support them. First I want to raise the case of the Saudi right to drive campaigners. Several brave Saudi Arabian women who campaigned for the right to drive have been arbitrarily detained since May 2018, including Samar Badawi and Loujain al-Hathloul. In November 2018, Amnesty International reported that several of those women faced sexual harassment, torture and other forms of ill-treatment during interrogation, including electrocution and flogging, leaving some unable to walk or stand properly. In one reported incident, one of the activists was made to hang from the ceiling. Can the Minister say whether the Foreign Secretary, on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, called for the unconditional release of those women activists?
I also wanted to highlight in the Chamber the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent lawyer and human rights defender in Iran. She was arrested at her home on 13 June 2018 and detained without charge for over six months. She was convicted on seven charges and sentenced to 33 years in prison and 148 lashes. Her peaceful human rights activities against being forced to wear the hijab, including those undertaken when acting as a lawyer—for example, when meeting clients—were used to build a criminal case against her. Even her insistence on choosing an independent lawyer, instead of one from the list of 20 selected by the head of the judiciary, has been cited as a criminal act. Will the UK Government call on the Iranian authorities to release Nasrin immediately and drop all charges against her?
The third case I wanted to highlight was that of Dina Meza from Honduras. She is a celebrated independent journalist committed to defending freedom of expression and information. She spent years investigating and reporting on human rights violations across the country and challenging those breaches. Dina worked at incredible personal risk, and has previously had to flee Honduras for her safety. Because of the threats she faces, she receives protective accompaniment from Peace Brigades International. What steps have the UK Government taken to help promote freedom of expression and protect women journalists in Honduras?
Finally, I want to talk about Rosalinda Dionicio from Mexico. She is the leader of the United Peoples’ Network of the Ocotlán Valley in Defence of Territory, which, since 2009, has been demanding the closure of the San Jose mine, which is owned by a subsidiary of the Canadian company, Fortuna Silver Mines. The group says the mine has caused enormous environmental destruction and water shortages in the community. Rosalinda was attacked by gunmen in 2012, but survived. Despite the attack and the subsequent threats, she continues to struggle for the rights of the indigenous communities affected. What will the Government do to help protect and improve the security of indigenous women human rights defenders in Mexico?
Those are just some examples of incredibly brave women around the world to whom we politicians need to pay tribute. We need to press our Government to stand alongside them and do whatever they can to protect them.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who gave us a very powerful and assured maiden speech and much food for thought. On International Women’s Day, we should think about what kind of country we women want to live in. I was reflecting on this when I realised, to my disappointment, that the Domestic Abuse Bill, which was recently reintroduced, will be yet another missed opportunity for the United Kingdom Government to finally do what is necessary to ratify the Istanbul convention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who speaks for my party on women and equalities issues, said, our then colleague in the SNP Dr Eilidh Whiteford led a successful campaign in 2017 to pass a law requiring the UK Government to ratify the Istanbul convention. This was the first time that an SNP MP had managed to get a private Member’s Bill into law, and it is very sad that, three years later, the UK Government have yet to ratify the convention.
The Istanbul convention is based on the understanding that violence against women is a form of gender-based violence that is committed against women because they are women. The convention makes it clear that it is the obligation of the state to address it fully in all its forms, and to take measures to protect all women from violence, to protect victims and to prosecute perpetrators. The convention leaves no doubt that there can be no real equality between women and men if women experience gender-based violence on a large scale and state agencies and institutions do not do enough to stop it.
I raised the issue of the UK’s failure to ratify the Istanbul convention in the House of Commons last week. That was before the Domestic Abuse Bill was reintroduced. I asked whether it was the requirement to support migrant women experiencing domestic abuse that was holding things up. It seems, I am sorry to say, that it is. Migrant women often find it impossible to access emergency protection because of the no recourse to public funds condition, and they are highly vulnerable to domestic abuse, and to coercive control in that situation, as a result of their immigration status. I am pleased to see that the new Domestic Abuse Bill is going to address some of the remaining issues preventing us from ratifying the convention, such as extraterritorial effect, but it will still fall short in the key area of the provision of services for migrant women, and that is simply not good enough.
My colleagues in the Scottish Government have ensured the passage of all the necessary legislation to enable ratification in respect of devolved matters. Does anyone think that the Scottish Government, led by my colleague Nicola Sturgeon, would still be quibbling after all this time about extending services to highly vulnerable migrants? I think we all know that the answer to that question is no. Last year, on International Women’s Day, the Irish Government ratified the Istanbul convention. The UK is now one of only six EU—or, in our case, former EU—countries still to do so. I believe that the best thing the British Government could do to mark this International Women’s Day would be to ratify the convention. When does the Minister think that the Government will deal with the issue in relation to migrant women, and when will we be in a position to ratify?
Just last week, the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—warned against complacency regarding women’s rights. She said that women’s rights
“cannot be an optional policy, subject to the changing winds of politics”.
When we look at the statistics right across the world, we can see that she is absolutely right about that. One in three women across the world experiences violence that is perpetrated by men. Between 60 million and 100 million women who should be alive today are missing, presumed dead, because of male violence. One woman dies every minute across the world due to problems relating to pregnancy, and 15 million adolescent girls have experienced forced sex. I am sure that we can multiply that figure several times for adult women. We also know that 72% of human trafficking victims are female, and that the vast majority, many of whom are children, are trafficked for the purposes of prostitution. Women also work two out of three of all labour hours worldwide, but they earn just 10% of the world’s income.
For all these reasons, women must be allowed to organise themselves to campaign against their oppression. Sometimes, this means excluding the group that has historically been responsible for the oppression of women, and that group is men. One of the things I want to say today, as forcefully as I can, is that it is eminently reasonable for women to organise on the basis of their sex, if they wish to do so. It is also legal for them to do so. It has been central to decades of feminist thought to say that gender is imposed on women in order to uphold their oppression. By gender, feminists mean presentation, modes of dress and the falsehood of masculine and feminine personality traits, about which we heard earlier. So if we say that gender is somehow innate, and that it supersedes sex, the logical conclusion is that women can somehow identify out of our oppression. Many feminists disagree with that, but increasingly, disagreeing with gender ideology has become a dangerous thing to do, as we heard from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). This brings me to the problem of no-platforming and the attempted silencing of well-respected feminist academics and others simply for asserting women’s rights. I would like this Chamber, on International Women’s Day, to send the really strong message across all the nations of these islands that no-platforming and attempting to silence feminist academics and other women who assert women’s rights is wrong.
Last weekend Selina Todd, a professor of modern history at the University of Oxford, found herself disinvited from making a short speech at a conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first women’s liberation movement meeting in the UK. That meeting had taken place at Ruskin College, as did last weekend’s conference. Professor Todd is a feminist and a socialist who has written extensively about women’s history and working-class history. Since 2017 she has been president of the Socialist Educational Association. The decision to silence her was not supported by the women who attended the conference, and thankfully it has been widely condemned, but she is one of a growing number of feminist academics who have been censored for their views that biological sex matters and that women, as a marginalised group, should be allowed to organise themselves according to their own definitions.
Professor Todd now requires security to attend her place of work. Sadly, she is not alone. Professor Rosa Freedman, an expert in human rights law who has worked for the UN and is now at the University of Reading, has suffered similar abuse. Naturally, because she is Jewish, she has also received antisemitic abuse for daring to be a feminist. The door of her office at the university has been vandalised and urinated on, and she has been followed home by individuals threatening rape and violence, simply for asserting women’s right to organise on the basis of their sex.
Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the philosophy professor Kathleen Stock has found herself de-platformed and subjected to a sustained campaign to have her ejected from her job at the University of Sussex. Prominent female politicians and journalists in my own country, Scotland, have been hounded and told that they should lose their jobs, simply for asserting women’s sex-based rights.
I had just a little taste of the treatment that some of those brave feminists have endured last year when, in the course of my duties on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—ironically, it was during an inquiry into freedom of speech—I raised with a Twitter executive Twitter’s one-sided practice of banning women and categorising as hate speech tweets stating biological facts, such as “women don’t have penises”, while tolerating and upholding abusive tweets threatening direct violence towards leading feminists such as Caroline Criado Perez and Helen Lewis. As a result of my intervention—not because I am special, but because I am a Member of Parliament and Twitter has to listen to people like me—those tweets were taken down and Twitter said that it would look again at its policy on hateful conduct, which does not include sex as a protected characteristic, which the Committee’s report commented was problematic.
The response to me doing my job in this House was an outpouring of bile on social media, culminating in a death threat, which Police Scotland and the Metropolitan police took seriously enough to give me police protection. Since then I have endured a daily stream of abuse on Twitter, including allegations that I am a transphobe and, ludicrously, a homophobe—it is quite difficult to be homophobic as a lesbian, but anyway. I am not remotely transphobic; I support the rights of trans people and have very good relationships with trans women in my constituency. I can tell the House that many trans women I speak to are angry that their quiet and dignified lives are being disrupted by malevolent individuals pushing identity politics in a way that is anti-democratic and abusive.
I am very proud of the fact that in Scotland we have very good rights-based protections for trans people. No one wants to change that, but some feminists have legitimate concerns about changing the law on gender recognition to allow self-identification. That is why I, along with a trans woman in my constituency, wrote to a colleague in the Scottish Government last year to suggest that the issue might be considered by a citizen’s assembly, in the way that Ireland has dealt with contentious issues. That is because my constituent and I think that refusing to acknowledge that legitimate concerns exist is not a solution to the current impasse in the debate on gender recognition, and nor is shouting down and targeting women. We must identify the issues, reflect and find ways of addressing them together.
Last year I found myself in the ludicrous situation of having to sue PinkNews for wrongly alleging that I was being investigated for homophobia. I am pleased to say that it settled out of court, and I donated the damages to a well-known lesbian and gay charity. Unfortunately, not all bullies are as easy to tackle. It is over time that every Member from every party in this House stood up to bullies in the gender lobby who want to shut down the right to free speech for those who do not 100% agree with their ideology.
Even if one does not care about this issue, if we allow bullies to triumph over free speech in one area of public discourse, we are giving them free rein to triumph over free speech in other areas of public discourse. I use the word “bullies” advisedly, because men—and it is mostly men—who want to silence women and prevent them from organising as a sex class are bullies and human rights deniers.
The right has a strong tradition of standing up for free speech and freedom of assembly, for which I applaud it, and so once did the left in the United Kingdom. The left must stand up for free speech again where women’s rights are concerned, and it must not give in to intimidation. The left should not let the right have a monopoly on free speech and freedom of assembly. Those rights are fundamental human rights and should matter to all of us as democrats, regardless of whether we sit on the right or, as SNP Members do, on the left of politics.
Women must be allowed to organise to protect their hard won sex-based rights, and, on International Women’s Day, this House should stand up against the bullies who are seeking to prevent them from doing that.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
International Women’s Day is a great opportunity to celebrate the progress made on women’s rights over the last 100 years, but it is equally important to highlight the progress we are yet to make.
Women face multiple forms of injustice every single day, and the role of this Government in compounding those injustices and preventing progress cannot be ignored. I will particularly focus today on the harm done to women who are denied access to public funds as a result of their immigration status.
As the law currently stands, most people who are subject to immigration control are restricted from accessing welfare benefits or housing through their council. This leads directly to homelessness and poverty, with women being particularly vulnerable to an increased risk of violence and abuse. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on no recourse to public funds, last week I heard first-hand accounts of the devastating impact this policy can have on women who are trying their best to get on in life. I pay tribute to Dami Makinde, co-CEO of We Belong; Isatu, Amina, Suzanne and Titi, members of Brighter Futures; and members of Sin Fronteras. They spoke about having no recourse to public funds and the financial burden of maintaining immigration status in the UK while on the 10-year route to settlement, and the impact that has on young people. As an all-party group, we are determined to make sure that the voices of those affected are heard in this place, whether or not the Government are willing to listen.
One account that sticks in my mind was from a young woman who said that her treatment, as somebody applying for citizenship in this country, has left her feeling dehumanised and unsafe. Having come to the UK as a child eight years ago, this is her home, but she said she feels like a prisoner on parole for a crime she did not commit. That sentiment is shared by many migrant women who have no recourse to public funds. Having fled torture, abuse or danger in another country, many of them find themselves isolated and excluded from the society they choose to call their new home.
This is yet another example of a Government policy that disproportionately harms women. It is a gift to those who wish to perpetrate financial and physical abuse. Women who would otherwise rely on welfare benefits to get themselves on their feet find that they have no access to any kind of safety net. The absence of support, which is often so badly needed, is a powerful weapon of coercion in the hands of those who wish to exploit women, using the fear of imprisonment, deportation or destitution. When the Government deny those women access to basic human rights, such as housing and the means of subsistence, they make that abuse more likely, they make exploitation more likely, and they make it harder for those women to fulfil their potential and start a new life in the UK. So it is time the Government ensured that all survivors of domestic abuse, regardless of immigration status, are given full and equal access to public funds. I hope that the Government will put an end to a policy that unfairly punishes women, and I hope they will listen to those inspirational women whom I heard from last week. Until they do, we will have a lot further to go in our pursuit of justice for all women.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in a debate that, sadly, in 2020, is still needed more than ever. While preparing for today, I began to reflect on what International Women’s Day means for me. There is so much to celebrate about the progress that has been made for women, both back at home in Wales and across the world. I particularly take inspiration from Governments across the globe, notably those of Finland and New Zealand, who have clearly made promoting women a priority. I, too, am hugely honoured to be doing my bit to improve gender diversity by representing the community I grew up and still live in here in Westminster. Yet I am sure that Members from across the House will agree that there is much work to be done for women outside this bubble too.
Ironically, the primary inspiration for my comments on International Women’s Day comes from a very important man in my life: my son, Sullivan. Sulley will be celebrating his first birthday in just a few short weeks, and I am thrilled to be spending this International Women’s Day with him by my side. I am sure I will face some stern opposition from Members when I say that Sulley really is the most precious child in the world. Before I am hit by comments from aggrieved parents everywhere, let me say that like many people before us, my husband and I knew that the road to pregnancy would be an extremely tough one. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, we were very lucky. After just one round of IVF, and against all the odds, my only surviving embryo, my one in a million arrived. Sadly, he was quickly whisked away to the neonatal intensive care unit, where he spent the first two weeks of his life. I can hand on heart say that they truly were the most difficult weeks of my life, and I would not wish the anxiety and sheer dread on anyone. My fertility story has a happy ending, but I know that for many this is not the case.
At the end of this month, I will also be spending my first proper Mothers’ Day with Sulley. This is a day that for the past few years has filled me with sadness and emptiness. Seeing the joy on so many faces on social media of mams up and down the country celebrating their children has always pulled at the part of me that has been desperate for a child while always knowing that, without help, I would not be able to have one. This International Women’s Day, I want to shout out to every woman who has looked at a celebratory social media pregnancy announcement, to every woman who has walked past a glowing bump in the street, to every woman who has been asked, “When are you having children?”, and to every woman who has had to sympathetically listen to a friend moan about how tired she is from looking after her children, all while suppressing the mixed emotions of envy, sadness and self-loathing. I want to say to those women: you are not alone. Sometimes as a woman struggling with fertility issues, you feel like a complete failure. You cannot talk about it with mams without seeming bitter, and without having a stigma surrounding you that your body has let you down and has prevented you from becoming the mother you always dreamed of being but know that potentially you can never be.
I also want to shout out to those women who know that they do not want to have children or that they are nowhere near ready for children but are under pressure from friends, family and society to get on with it before they are supposedly “over the hill” and “past their prime”. So many women are told that they will change their minds and that not wanting children is a “phase” as though it is a reflection on their femininity. Having children for me was a blessing, but it is also really hard work and sacrifices have to be made. Career, mental health, self-care, body image, friendships, opportunities and the choice to be selfish, which there is nothing wrong with, are just a few of the many things that women up and down the country give up.
I have wanted a child for as long as I can remember, and I would not change a thing about Sulley—except maybe his sleeping habits. But nothing can prepare you for the guilt you feel as a working mam who is often away from home; it is truly all-consuming. Before Sulley came along, I felt guilt for depriving my family of a child who would be so welcomed and loved. I internalised guilt for not being able to conceive a child without medical intervention. The guilt does not end once the child arrives, though: it follows you from sunrise to sunset. Whether you are having to stay late at work, are out socialising with friends or are sat in this very Chamber, the guilt carries on.
In a world where social media is infiltrated with images of supposed perfection, I regularly feel the pressure and guilt that come with feeling I am not good enough. I know how lucky I am to have had access to fertility treatment. I also know that most people are aware of the broad science behind IVF, so I will not indulge colleagues with too much of the detail today. I do, however, believe that this International Women’s Day is the perfect opportunity for us all to reflect and to carefully consider our policies around fertility and the rights of both parents on what is clearly a sensitive topic.
Currently, a 10-year limit exists for women when freezing their eggs. If I had been faced with making a decision in my early 20s about the prospect of having children in my 30s, I would not have known what the next decade of life had in store for me. I definitely would have been more focused on perfecting my Céline Dion impression in karaoke bars in Cardiff, which, again, I will not indulge colleagues with today—at least not without some wine. Current legislation is placing unnecessary pressure on women everywhere, and I hope that, with reflection, that can change.
I am sure I am not alone when I say that the pressures on women with children, whether conceived through IVF or not, do not end with childbirth. I chose to breastfeed Sulley, and it was the best decision I could have made. However, it was also the hardest thing I have ever done, and I sympathise with any new parent who is up at ridiculous o’clock with a newborn attached to their nipple, dreaming of a holiday in Hawaii. While I have been extremely lucky that my workplace has generally been very accommodating—I pay tribute to the House staff for the work they do—the same cannot be said by many new parents across the country. We must do all we can to support new parents with better protections for breastfeeding in the workplace, improved paternity leave legislation and a real consideration of our practices on egg freezing.
While I am extremely proud to produce a photo of Sulley as a three-day-old embryo, consisting of just eight cells, at any opportunity, I know that infertility and breastfeeding present real struggles for families across the world. I hope that, one day soon, we will not need a specific day to commemorate women and all the issues I have outlined. I have faith that, instead, in the world Sulley will grow up in, true gender equality will be the norm.
We need to champion new parents and do all we can to remove the guilt and stigma attached to parenthood. It is okay to be selfish every now and then. I hope any parent who is struggling feels able to reach out and speak about the issues I have raised today. Until then, I will do all I can from these green Benches to be a loud voice for all those who feel they have had their voice silenced.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a genuine honour to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I thank her for her speech and for her participation in the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. I look forward to working with her in the months and years ahead. She picked up on a really important point in relation to IVF, which is another of the issues around women’s bodies, and Conservative Members mentioned it as well. It is not taken into consideration in the workplace that IVF is a difficult and sometimes traumatic experience. The Government could do more to consider how women are supported through it and to ensure that it is taken into account in workplaces across the country, regardless of the status of the women in them, so that it is no longer a thing women cannot talk about.
I want to be a tiny bit indulgent today and to thank the women closest to me for the influence they have had on my life. I want first to thank my mum—a teacher, and the first in her family to go to university—who always reassured me that it did not matter how well I did in my exams, because she would still be there for me and still love me. I thank her very much for her support, without which I would really struggle to do this job today.
I also want to thank my Gran White, who was second in her class at school in English and Latin, and third in science, but who was forced to give up school at the age of 14 to take on a cleaning job. The second world war gave her a second chance and saw her take up service in the Wrens. That led to a good job in the telephone exchange when she left service after the war, but, yet again, she ended up being forced to leave when she got married. However, her duty was always to her family, and she pushed on everybody around her. She supported my mum when she had me, so that she could go to work and carry out her role.
I pay tribute to Gran Thewliss, who passed away last September at the age of 99. I miss her very dearly and think of her quite a lot. We built tents together, baked cakes together, and picked out dresses together—[Interruption.] I did not mean to get quite so upset, but I thank her and I miss her.
I also thank my Auntie Carol. She is not an auntie in the biological sense, but we all have those aunties. She was my modern studies teacher at school and got me interested in politics—so a lot of this is her fault, and I thank her very much for it as well. Another woman—a very small woman—who means an awful lot to me is my daughter Kirsty, who is six. Of all the women, she is certainly the most challenging. She is challenging all the time, but she is very much worth the effort.
We talked earlier about gender roles and the things that people see all around them as they grow up, and those things are really pervasive. My daughter is not immune to them and loves those pink and sparkly things, despite my determination to get her to do and to like other things, but she is a rounded individual. She loves to climb, she loves to clamber, and she loves getting herself into all kinds of bother. I was really proud that her school was involved in a recent UEFA and Disney advert, encouraging more girls to get involved in women’s football. It is a great wee advert, showing the strength of the girls, the teamwork, and all those positive aspects that you can get from sport. She proudly tells people that she has seen Scottish girls’ football and Scottish boys’ football, but that the girls were better as they scored more goals. The Scottish national women’s team proved that last night in their 3-0 victory over Ukraine. I wish them all the best of luck in the Pinatar Cup in the coming days.
The world in which I want Kirsty to grow up should be more equal than the world that we see now, and more equal than the world of her great-grandparents, her gran and her nana, who I should mention is a WASPI woman—one of the thousands who have been done out of her pension. Sadly, the world that I see today is not yet that more equal world, and this UK Government continue to pursue policies that push more women into stress, hardship and poverty. The prospects of equality do feel very far away for many women today.
Along with many other women’s organisations and women from across the House, I have campaigned on issues such as the two-child limit and the rape clause because of their disproportionate impact on women, and, in many cases, on ethnic minorities and religious minorities as well.
Last year, 510 women had to fill in a form to prove that they were raped so that they could get additional benefits. Women in abusive and coercive relationships often become trapped because of the two-child limit. They rely on their spouse to provide for those children and they do not have enough money to survive and to break free. Under the terms of universal credit, those payments often go to the man in that relationship.
There is also evidence that women have been forced to terminate healthy pregnancies by a spouse because that child will only cost money and bring none in, which is really disturbing. There was a report in The Times today that 24%—almost a quarter—of pregnancies in England and Wales ended in abortion in 2018. I fully support a woman’s right to choose, but no woman should be forced into that decision through poverty. Clare Murphy of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service said:
“In recent years, we’ve seen an increasingly cautious approach to family size, which is likely to be driven by a host of factors ranging from the two-child limit…to uncertainty about Brexit.”
The insidious impact of this two-child limit is its judgment. There is this notion that women are somehow feckless and irresponsible for having children, as if it had nothing to do with men, and the pervasive myth of the welfare queen. All of this at a time when we know that it is an economic necessity to grow our population in the face of the demographic challenges ahead. I call on the Government again to scrap this policy in the Budget. It is forcing hundreds of thousands of families into poverty and into a trap from which they cannot escape. The Government can and should act in the upcoming Budget.
Other policies and practices of this UK Government also have a disproportionate impact on women—from universal credit household payments to policies such as no recourse to public funds, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) mentioned. Such policies cause harm and hardship. A constituent of mine who was given leave to remain—case No. 3 on my books that dates from May 2015—had no recourse to public funds. That means no access to the majority of social security benefits, including housing benefit, income support, tax credits, child benefit and personal independence payments. For a single parent who is in a low-paid job to support her two children who are British citizens, that policy can make life all but impossible. Her solicitors Latta & Co., her friends and supporters, organisations such as Children 1st and my office provided all the support we could to keep her going. We provided her with food bank vouchers, items from the school uniform bank and Christmas presents. Her GP wrote of the marked deleterious effect on her social, psychological and, ultimately, physical wellbeing. Finally, in May 2019, her “no recourse to public funds” status was lifted. But of course, that is not the end of the journey because she then has to go about the process of applying for universal credit, and because she works she is not going to get enough money to survive on at the end of the month. When she was leaving my office with her daughter after coming to pick up some Christmas presents, her daughter came back, tapped on my door, looked up at me and said, “Alison, why have we got no money?” I have no answers for that girl really, other than that Government policy is driving the poverty that they are in and the Government could do something about it, but I could not say that to a child. All she knows is that she cannot get the same opportunities as her friends because of a status that her mum has been given.
I want to talk a bit about the Home Office because it is the source of a great deal of trauma, particularly to women in my constituency. My office was visited by the husband of a woman who had had an incredibly traumatic birth of a premature baby and needed to receive transfusions of 17 litres of blood. He wanted his mother-in-law to come over from Pakistan to support his wife and help look after the couple’s other two children, as he was going to have to return to work after paternity leave. His mother-in-law is a retired housewife with no bank account of her own, as can be the case for older women in Pakistan and here. Of course, the Home Office refused her application, not believing that she would return to her home and extended family in Pakistan. Her son is the only family she has in this country, so other than looking after her grandchildren, she had no reason to stay. All she wanted to do was visit her family, but that was not possible because of the lack of compassion and understanding of the Home Office. There was no appeal process because she was applying for a visitor visa, so the family just have to apply again and hope that the Home Office might look kindly on her application next time, even though her circumstances will not have not changed.
The way in which the Home Office goes about things is extremely troubling. Some time ago, I accompanied a constituent to an immigration tribunal. The woman was gay; she had come here when she was married, and had separated from her husband once she was here and felt safe. She had gone through the immigration system for quite some time, trying to make appeals to claim asylum, because she had absolutely no doubt that she would suffer persecution if she was sent back to the country she was from, given that she had already had extremely traumatic experiences in that country. Here, my constituent was forced to provide a series of witnesses to prove and give testimony to her sexuality. Now, I am not sure that I could provide six different people to testify to my sexuality if I had to, but that is what she was asked to do. She was asked to provide a range of different people, who were asked, “What is your opinion of my client’s sexuality?”
At one stage, the Home Office lawyer in the room questioned her integrity by saying, “She lied to her husband and her family when she came here, so she must be lying to people here today.” The judge at the immigration tribunal, to his absolute credit, intervened on that lawyer and said, “I’m not having that, because this happens in life.” He had friends who had come out in later life, and knew that it was not unusual in society. But the Home Office decided to put that woman through the mill to prove her sexuality so that she could get to stay here. Home Office Ministers should reflect on how that feels, and sit in on some immigration tribunals so that they know what is going on in their Department.
Women’s access to education is also compromised by the way in which the universal credit system works. I have a constituent who was in teacher training and also has a five-year-old child. She is trying to better herself and improve her situation in life, but due to the way in which universal credit interacts with student loans, and the cost of after-school care for her child, she has ended up in rent arrears and has had to suspend her studies. The UK Government need to give much greater consideration as to how women are supported and encouraged, rather than made to feel that life is just far, far too difficult because their lives are seen as too complicated to fit into a system such as universal credit. Mary Beard says:
“You cannot easily fit women into a structure that is already coded as male; you have to change the structure.”
Drugs death is an issue that I have campaigned on, but I have not talked very much about its disproportionate impact on women. Last week, I attended the Scottish Government’s and Glasgow City Council’s drugs death summit. I was not permitted to attend to the UK Government’s drugs death summit, despite the fact that it was in my constituency and on an issue I was interested in—but I will leave that just now. In 2018, 327 of the 1,187 people who died were women, the majority of whom were over the age of 35. These are vulnerable women suffering trauma on trauma—abuse of all kinds—in their history as children and as adults. They have had the stigma of having children taken from them, perhaps not once but multiple times. They need particular help and support.
Very powerful testimony was given by Claire Muirhead, who is in sustained recovery after 16 years of heroin addiction. She spoke of the power of whole-family recovery. She is now back in communication with her family and has a good relationship with her child. She said that treatment helped her to stop using drugs, but the recovery community helped her to build the connections afterwards. That is hugely important. We cannot think that people have treatment and then they are done, because we find that that is often not the case. We need to have these recovery communities right around people. They have been incredibly powerful in Scotland.
Claire Muirhead also called on the UK Government to stop criminalising people who use drugs, because that makes it very difficult for them to get the help that they need. That is particularly the case for women who risk losing everything—losing their children and losing their whole lives—because of drugs. The barriers put in place by the criminality of using drugs put women at risk. She also very clearly called on the UK Government to implement drug consumption rooms, because they are an easy way of people getting access to support services, getting into treatment, and getting out of situations where they are using drugs in very dangerous and risky situations. They can get help, support and treatment, and get into recovery.
I pay tribute to FASS—Family Addiction Support Service—in Glasgow, which has some incredibly strong women. Some of them have had multiple traumas in their lives due to drug addiction, but they work incredibly hard to make sure that no other families suffer in the same way as they have.
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech. I echo the demands she makes on the Government. I have personally recognised both in my own life and in my constituency that when somebody has a drug addiction, it is almost always the women in the family of that addict who end up taking a huge amount of the burden and pain. Does she agree that we should not simply see these people in isolation, but as part of a much broader community that we should want to help?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Lady speaks from great experience, and she is absolutely correct. I know from people working in some communities that some women rack up huge debts to try to pay off drug debts. They put themselves at risk by trying to do everything they can do to support their family members. We should think of and pay tribute to all of them as well.
Glasgow Women’s Library in my constituency is a wonderful organisation and an absolute beacon. I thank it for the work that it does in the community, and also for its work around ESOL classes, which help to support women with the English language skills that can often help to bring them into wider society and make wider connections.
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who spoke for the official Opposition, mentioned that smaller countries in the world have the greatest equality in their populations. I do not see that as an accident. In small, independent countries, people have the closeness to each other, and closeness to their Government, that enables them to tackle inequality because it is not so far away from any of them, and because they have the full powers of such countries. For us in the SNP, that is no coincidence. We would very much like to see Scotland having full powers over our economy so that we can then use those levers to make sure that inequality is ended for good.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who made a passionate speech. This is the first time I have closed a debate, and it is an honour to close this debate in particular, because women and the issue of women’s inequality have shaped my life. The room is full of emotion, and it is a privilege to be here. I thank the Government for holding this debate in their time. It is usually a Backbench Business debate, but it is right that this forms part of the mainstream business of the House and that we recognise the contribution of women internationally, nationally and closer to home in our constituencies.
The former Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), talked about intersectionality and highlighted her efforts to end FGM, for which I thank her. It is really important to remember the issues that affect our shores. It was horrifying to hear that somebody described FGM as just a piece of flesh being cut.
I would like to extend an advance “happy birthday” to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for Sunday, which is also International Women’s Day. I admire her outfit, which has come all the way from Malawi, and thank her for sharing that with us.
I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for all she has done. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North on her appointment as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee—she has a big set of shoes to fill, following the work done in the last five years, for which Members on both sides of the House are grateful.
In the Tea Room earlier, I asked my Labour sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), how many tears I would have to hold back when she reads the names of the women we have lost in the last year. It never fails to move people here and beyond. I thank her and Karen for compiling that list, because I cannot begin to imagine what a task that is. It is right that that has become a tradition in the House, and I am grateful for it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on her maiden speech. I have learnt a lot more about Poplar and Limehouse—I was not aware that “Call the Midwife” had been filmed there. She is a credit to the people of Poplar and Limehouse, and I am sure that this is the beginning of a long and successful voice here in the House for her constituents. As a fellow Muslim woman, I also congratulate her on being the first woman in a hijab to represent her constituency in this great House.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for her passionate speech. The last time I heard her speak, equally passionately, it was about her own experiences of domestic violence, when we discussed the Domestic Abuse Bill; I recall that like it was yesterday. I do not know about anybody else, but the idea of wearing a onesie made of meat going into a piranha tank is cringeworthy and not something I would like to imagine! But I recognise that that is the case for women in politics, as a woman and a shadow Minister who is often abused on social media and feels like the person wearing that onesie in a piranha tank. That is our reality in politics. As the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, we have lost a great deal of good women from this House. I thank her for honouring them; we must do so during this debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) for her passionate speech about the issue of having no recourse to public funds. I attended the inaugural meeting of that all-party parliamentary group, for which I was grateful. I heard at first hand the experiences of those young people, including the one she mentioned, who talked about the impact that the 10-year route to immigration has on a child. As a mother to a teenager, I cannot imagine a 15-year-old having the anxiety of thinking about doing something that will give her a criminal record and put her on the next plane back to where she came from, instead of doing her GCSEs and just being a young person going through life, as our children and every child should be able to. I learnt a great deal from that, and I thank her.
To turn again to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, it is always heart wrenching when we mention personal stories. I have done it in this House, as have many others, and no matter how much practice we put in, it does choke us up. It takes extra bravery and it really does take it out of us. I thank her for sharing that story, which was so personal to her.
As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said in her speech, there is an issue about structures in government and in society that we really need to address. The Labour party is a party of equality, committed to achieving a world free from all forms of bigotry and discrimination. Whether campaigning on the streets or passing legislation in government, Labour is the only party consistently to stand with women. I know that today is about women from across the parties coming together, but the truth is that 85% of the burden of 10 years of austerity and cuts has disproportionately fallen on the shoulders of women.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act 1970, yet women still earn 13% less than men. I was proud to march with Samira Ahmed at her tribunal case against the BBC, because when women do the same work as men, why should we be paid any less? That is why a Labour Government would take action to close the gender pay gap by 2030. Our call for equal pay would not just be warm words; we would legislate by making gender pay equality the state’s responsibility.
Women also face life challenges in the workplace, which is why Labour has campaigned and will continue campaigning for flexible working hours, working from home and the introduction of a menopause workplace policy to break the stigma associated with the menopause, as part of our party’s wider plans to transform the workplace for women—and rightly so.
Each International Women’s Day we are reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley of the tragic lives lost to domestic abuse. I thank her for her invitation to join the all-party group on domestic violence and abuse. These women are not statistics—I have said this before—but real people. I absolutely welcome the Domestic Abuse Bill put forward by the Government, but it needs to go so much further by protecting all women. During the all-party group meeting, we had a discussion and were able to show the Minister that migrant women do not fare well in the Domestic Abuse Bill. I encourage Ministers to look at that.
As I speak about the importance of the legislative change that we need to make to improve the lives of women in this country, I do not just say it—I genuinely mean it. There was a time when my life was defined by black bin liners, because that is how I used to move home. I was the daughter of a victim of domestic abuse who served 14 years in prison, and she went to prison because she could no longer handle the abuse and killed the partner who abused her. That was where my real journey into politics started—when I raised my brother and sister, who were teenagers, while moving from home to home. When I talk about my story, I share with people a slide with literally two black bin liners, whether in relation to my forced marriage, having to live in poverty or having experienced homelessness.
My standing here today to make a closing statement on International Women’s Day tells us—this is the message that it really brings home to me—that for my sisters and my daughters, and for women in this country and beyond, there is hope. However, we have made so much progress, but we have so much further to go. Despite all the progress, what I will not do once I have made it out of the struggles that I once faced is close the door on others. Neither will I pull up the ladder behind me when it comes to the fights that are still fought by women who look like me and believe like me.
The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Each for Equal”. Therefore, today I also say that, although having women Prime Ministers, women in Cabinet and even over 50% of Labour MPs being women —and 51% in our parliamentary Labour party—is a huge achievement that must not be overlooked, the fight must go on, with women showing solidarity to all women, including those from BAME backgrounds.
If recent history has taught us anything it is that you can be Princess Meghan Markle, but if you are a person of colour you will unfairly and disproportionately be targeted for literally being who you are; you can win “The Great British Bake Off”, like the inspirational Nadiya Hussain, but you will also be disproportionately targeted by hatemongers.
Although the Women and Equalities Committee published a report in 2015 highlighting the triple-whammy faced by women who were of colour and Muslim, the reality is that little has changed in that triple penalty of misogyny, xenophobia and Islamophobia faced by these women in their daily lives. In fact, some women now feel their hijab should be removed for their personal safety, and others who choose to wear other garments have had the most powerful man in this country legitimise hate towards them by referring to their personal choices as making them look like letterboxes and bank robbers. I mention this because some women have become more acceptable to target than others, and that is why I say that all women should come together to stand and fight for those most marginalised. There is no hierarchy in misogyny.
However, although I say all women must come together, this fight is not just for women to fight alone. Like many women in this House and outside, I have been inspired to stand up for change and fight for equality because of the likes of Mary Wollstonecraft, Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks and Benazir Bhutto, as well as Oprah Winfrey in the modern day. For many across society, the women in this Chamber will be their inspiration. I could go on listing inspirational women leaders who have not only made a positive contribution to society, but have motivated, inspired and enlightened generations of women to do the same. But these women were and are inspirational not only for women but for men, too.
Let me say who also inspires me to stand up as a British Muslim woman. He is the man who in 1935 was honoured by the US Supreme Court as one of the greatest law-givers of the world. His name is Muhammed, and he is the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Despite what many may attribute or claim, he motivates and inspires—and he inspires me and empowers me to stand up as a British Muslim woman. He came to the world at a time when the most basic right to life of women was being denied, and in a matter of years he transformed a society that degraded, chastised and murdered women to one that empowered them with not only a right to life, but property rights, marital rights, inheritance rights, voting rights and democratic rights, and the rights of honour and of dignity and liberty.
I say that because, in 2020, International Women’s Day must not be an isolated occasion for only women to fight for women. I know there are stories of powerful fathers empowering their daughters, of husbands being the shoulders for their wives, and of sons being guided by the light of their mothers—and I cannot forget brothers, for my sons right now, my eight-year-old and 12-year-old, have to give up their space because my daughter is preparing for her GCSEs and doing her mock exams; they have to sacrifice and support her. We have to fight this fight together. Issues of women’s equality are as much a matter for men as for women, because we all have a moral obligation to tackle injustice. Just as we do not have to be black to get racism, we do not have to be a woman to get misogyny and be a feminist.
I know that the misogynists, xenophobes and Islamophobes will be lurking and waiting to attack another woman of colour for speaking out today, but I also know that standing by my side in this Chamber and outside, I will have the powerful shoulders of sisterhood. So I have decided, on this International Women’s Day: I will say it; we will say it; she will say it.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is an honour to close this debate, and I thank every Member who has attended to raise issues, highlight successes and reflect how much women have contributed and will continue to contribute to our country and the rest of the world.
There have been some fantastic speeches—too many for me to mention them all, so I will highlight just a few. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) made the local connection with Florence Nightingale—a personal heroine of mine, as a fellow nurse—and her groundbreaking work. Today we find ourselves following the strict hand-washing rules that she set out many years ago. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) made a fantastic maiden speech. It is such an honour that she chose this debate to make it in. We can already see that she will be a force to reckon with in this place and will keep the east end firmly on the map.
My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), highlighted what a hard-working local MP she is by bringing up Langney Primary School and its equality day. As she pointed out, she is Eastbourne’s first woman MP—again. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) talked about the effect that misogyny can have and the piranha tank of social media, which, to be fair, we have all experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) highlighted how few men have come to support this debate; we hope to see more next year. However, as she pointed out in her rather sassy speech, we could do just fine without them. I note, however, that the male members of the Whips Office—who are here to support me, I think—have appeared on the Bench.
Like many hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) highlighted the plight of human rights defenders in other countries who find themselves in prison for doing the simple things that we take for granted in this country. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked a number of questions, particularly about Iranian prisoners. This morning the Leader of the House announced that there may be some positive news on that, but I hope the hon. Lady does not mind if I speak to the Foreign Secretary and get back to her about the particular Foreign Office issues that she raised.
There are so many great advocates for equality of opportunity and treatment of women in this Chamber, and I thank them all for their excellent work. As the Minister for Women and Equalities said in her opening remarks, the theme for International Women’s Day is “Each for Equal”, through which women want to achieve a gender-equal world. We are making progress right here in Parliament. We all have our own views about the result of the general election a few short months ago, but we have all mentioned how delighted we are to have more women MPs in this place than ever before. There are now 220 women MPs in Parliament—34% of the total, up from 22% in 2010. Although that is not the height of our ambition for the number of female MPs, it shows that we are making progress.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that although we have made progress in getting more female candidates, we have more work to do in retaining excellent female MPs. We lost far too many from all sides at the last election. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, all MPs have the responsibility to play our part.
I am proud to stand at the Dispatch Box as an example of what the Prime Minister has named “the people’s Government”—a Government more reflective of the people they serve—and the second female in my family to have worked in the House of Commons. My aunt worked as a waitress in the Members’ Dining Room back in the ’60s, when there were just 26 female MPs and someone from my background would never have made it as an MP. I am standing at this Dispatch Box today only because I am covering for the feisty and inspirational Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), who is on maternity leave. Before entering this place, she worked in engineering, as a financier and in journalism—a really positive role model for our young women of today, demonstrating that this Government come from all walks of life.
International Women’s Day is primarily a day of celebration, and we have heard speeches that offer a huge amount of hope for the future, and demonstrate that in many areas we are making real progress towards a fairer society. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), pointed out, it is right that this is debated in Government time. However, we have also heard appalling details of inequality from a number of speakers and clear evidence of the prejudices that women and girls still face.
We were all moved, as we are every year, by the speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and it is tragic that the number of women killed by domestic violence has increased this year. The Government are serious about tackling this and I am pleased that only this week, we reintroduced our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, which includes a number of changes to the Bill that was introduced in the last Parliament. Those include a new duty on tier 1 local authorities in England to provide support to domestic abuse victims and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation, and we continue to progress the non-legislative work to support the Bill as it comes forward.
The shadow Minister touched on finance around the Bill. The Government have committed £100 million of funding to combat violence against women and girls, including £20 million for domestic abuse, and are piloting an integrated domestic abuse court to support victims. The Government are also taking seriously the need to help victims of domestic abuse, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and stalking. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on her work on FGM when she was a Minister. She is right—it is child abuse and it is illegal.
There were questions from a number of Members on the Istanbul convention, and I reassure them that the Government remain committed to ratifying the convention as soon as possible. The Domestic Abuse Bill contains the necessary measures to satisfy the convention’s requirements in respect of ensuring that the criminal courts in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have the required extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain violent and sexual offences, as required by article 44. The Northern Ireland Minister for Justice has also announced her intention to bring before the Assembly legislation that would criminalise psychological violence in Northern Ireland, as required by article 33. Had the general election not come late last year, we would be far further down the line in ratifying the Istanbul convention. I hope that Members will agree that the Government are absolutely committed to making sure that that happens.
I recognise that Members have identified a range of issues that negatively impact on women in the workplace. We are developing further guidance to support employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. I am proud to say that this week the whole Whips Office took part in Parliament’s Valuing Everyone training, which covers sexual harassment in the workplace. If right hon. and hon. Members have not undertaken the training I urge them to do so, as we all have a responsibility to do our part in calling it out and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. There is a waiting list for the training, so please do put your name forward as soon as possible.
The Government are also serious about tackling the gender pay gap, which a number of Members mentioned. This Conservative Government brought in the regulations back in 2017. The gender pay gap is at a record low of 17.3%. Reporting for this year is due in March and April and I hope that we will see a further improvement. I remind Members, however, that equal pay has been a legal requirement since 1970. Last year, we made a commitment to review the enforcement of the equal pay legislation, and I hope that we see an improvement from companies around the country as the figures on the gender pay gap are published.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend is making a really strong speech and I congratulate her on that. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who spoke for the Opposition, said that equal pay should legally be a matter for the Government, but it already is. We already have that legislation, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of enforcement? That is the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and it should be doing more of it.
Maria Caulfield
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right; it is already law and we need to enforce it to ensure that it absolutely happens.
The Government continue to show leadership in multiple forums such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the G7, the G20, the OECD and the Council of Europe, as well as in our bold initiatives such as the international LGBT conference, which we are proud to be running in May.
I personally welcome one of the Prime Minister’s top priorities that girls around the world should receive 12 years of quality education, tackling the obstacles that girls and young women face across the world, which was so eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley. The Government are also committed to creating a society that works for everyone. The female employment rate is at a near record high of 72.4% and just under 2 million more women are in work since 2010. We continue to support families with childcare costs, and the Government have invested £6.6 million to support carers to remain in or to return to work. The Government will be bringing forward a plan for social care this year to introduce a dedicated entitlement to leave for unpaid carers of one week per year alongside existing employment rights.
I am proud to have been part of the debate that has taken place here today. I thank every Member of the House who has participated. It is evident that there is more to be done at home and abroad, but we know we are going in the right direction. As we mark International Women’s Day this week, it is right that we celebrate our achievements and look at how far we have come. With more women in work than ever before, including more at the very top than ever before, we can be proud of the progress of the past 12 months. Britain has long been a world leader in championing equality of treatment and opportunity, both at home and abroad.
Fifty years ago, the introduction of the Equal Pay Act in the United Kingdom turned on its head outdated ideas of what a woman’s role can be. Today women are competing alongside men in all sorts of arenas that were once considered the sole preserve of men, whether they be engineers, para commanders or, indeed, darts players. Mr Deputy Speaker, as this may be my one and only appearance at the Dispatch Box, I am going to be cheeky and use an excellent example from my own constituency of Lewes. Lewes football club—I declare an interest as a community shareholder—has led the world in being the first ever football club to pay its female footballers the same as its men.
I am proud of all the progress we have seen, and now that the UK has left the European Union I am determined that it will continue to blaze a trail for the empowerment of women and girls and to celebrate their successes all over the world. I strongly believe that greater freedom to pursue our own future as a country will be better for all of us and that when we break down barriers that people face in the workplace, society and different parts of the country will benefit.
It is clear from what we have heard in the House today that we all share the commitment to change and to working together to ensure that no one is held back because of their sex or any other factor. In this country, whoever we are and wherever we come from, we will have the opportunities to challenge outdated ways of doing things, set new records and fulfil our full potential, inspiring the next generation of girls, whose success simply cannot depend on anything other than their skills, ambition and determination.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone a happy International Women’s Day this Sunday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Let me begin by thanking Mr Speaker for allowing me to hold this debate, and thanking the Government and all those who contributed to the previous debate for enabling us to have a long Adjournment debate to which other Members can contribute. I trust that you will be able to recognise them when they rise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The United Kingdom has been a world leader in tobacco control for many years, and we have made great progress in reducing smoking rates. The latest figures show that adult smoking has declined to a low of 14.4% in England and 14.7% in the UK as a whole. However, as we celebrate International Women’s Day on Sunday, it is fair to say that the one target on which we have been extremely challenged is persuading pregnant women to stop smoking. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten us on other measures that the Government will take to encourage that. It is equally fair to say that the health inequalities that exist across the UK are exacerbated by the number of people on low incomes who continue to smoke.
The Government have consistently implemented a comprehensive approach to tobacco control, from the point of sale display ban and the prohibition on smoking in cars with children to standardised tobacco packaging. All those measures have helped to drive down smoking rates and discourage young people from starting to smoke. Last month, yet again, the UK was rated best in Europe for our comprehensive tobacco control strategy, and as we have now left the European Union, we want no backsliding from that performance. The welcome ambition set in last year’s prevention Green Paper is to end smoking in England by 2030. It requires us to build on that comprehensive strategy, and to go further in reducing smoking prevalence. At this point, I must declare my interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Last week it was revealed that the tobacco industry is attempting to undermine this comprehensive approach. Leaked documents that appeared in The Guardian—not a publication that I normally read—and in the “Dispatches” programme showed that Philip Morris International, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, is attempting to buy influence by offering no less than £1 billion over 10 years in return for a relaxing of the current advertising ban on its heated tobacco products, enabling it to market its new IQOS tobacco product in cinemas, online, and at the point of sale.
This latest cynical attempt by Philip Morris International to influence UK health policies follows attempts that it made in 2018 to partner with NHS trusts. On that occasion, the then Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said:
“Our aim to make our NHS—and our next generation—smoke-free must be completely separate from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.”
He went on to say:
“Philip Morris International will be well aware that its actions are entirely inappropriate and we will be contacting all NHS trusts to remind them of their obligations.”
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will echo our hon. Friend’s words and restate the Government’s commitment to protecting public health from
“commercial and other vested interests of tobacco companies”,
in line with the UK’s obligation under article 5.3 of the framework convention on tobacco control.
Last week it was also announced in new projections from Cancer Research UK, which does such brilliant work in not only combating the evils of cancer but highlighting ways in which people can avoid it, that unless we speed up the rate of change, we will not hit the Government’s smoke-free ambition by 2030 but in 2037—seven years later—which will mean many more avoidable deaths. Funding is needed to deliver the further action that will help to ensure that we achieve a smoke-free 2030, and the APPG on smoking and health has said in its last two reports that that funding should come from legislation forcing the tobacco industry to pay for the damage that its products do, in line with our obligations under the framework convention on tobacco control. This “polluter pays” approach is used by the United States, which raises a fixed sum from tobacco manufacturers to fund its tobacco control activity. I hope that proposal will be included in the Government’s response to consultation on the prevention Green Paper, “Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s”, which we keenly anticipate.
The tobacco industry has a long history of subverting regulations design to protect public health. To prevent this, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control states:
“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.”
This includes rejecting all partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements with the tobacco industry. However, leaked papers revealed last week show yet another attempt by Philip Morris International to subvert public health policies. It proposes setting up a tobacco transition fund, which would provide £1 billion over 10 years in return for the lifting of laws restricting e-cigarette advertising and a loosening of the ban on advertising of its heated tobacco products. This deal is an attempt by Philip Morris to ensure that it is able to promote its new heated tobacco product, IQOS, in countries where the cigarette market is shrinking, such as the UK.
Philip Morris insists that IQOS is aimed at adult smokers, but the US Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is just as addictive as smoking. In other words, it will be as easy to get addicted to, and just as difficult to quit, IQOS as smoking. The evidence is that more than two thirds of those who try smoking go on to become daily smokers, and on average, smokers try to quit 30 times before succeeding. Relaxing the advertising restrictions on heated tobacco products, as proposed by Philip Morris, would enable advertising of IQOS to reach children and young people, ensuring future consumers of its products even while smoking rates decline.
It is not only Philip Morris International that is attempting to buy influence with Governments; other tobacco companies are doing so. In 2018, The Observer revealed that British American Tobacco, despite being aware that article 5.3 of the WHO framework convention applies to local authorities, had been attempting to partner with councils. The UK Government have been independently assessed as being the Government who are most successful in resisting tobacco industry interference and living up to their article 5.3 obligations, yet the industry continues to try to find new ways to get a seat at the table, and the tobacco transition fund is just the latest attempt, with a bribe of £1 billion attached.
Will the Minister restate the Government’s commitment to protecting our public health policies from the interests of tobacco companies, in line with our legal obligations as a party to the WHO’s tobacco control policy? Will she further ensure that her colleagues in Government are aware of the UK’s legal obligations not to partner or enter into agreements with the tobacco industry?
The prevention Green Paper acknowledges, on tobacco control, that reaching the smoke-free 2030 target will be “extremely challenging”. This was highlighted last week, in projections published by Cancer Research UK, which showed that at the current rate of progress, we will not meet our 5% smoke-free ambition until 2037. That is largely due to inequalities, as I mentioned. While the least deprived communities in England will reach the 5% target by 2025, the most deprived communities are not projected to reach smoke-free until the mid-2040s—a 20-year difference, and of course, a great number of lives unnecessarily lost. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will mention that in his contribution.
That difference in smoking prevalence translates into substantial health inequalities, with smoking being the leading cause of the nine-year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor. Reducing smoking rates will make the single largest contribution to achieving the Government’s ageing society grand challenge, and further action is desperately needed to address this inequalities gap. Reducing the uptake and prevalence of smoking among young people will be key to achieving a smoke-free generation. Smoking rates among young people have declined rapidly in recent years, but there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case without further action from the Government. The sad reality is that 280 children take up smoking every day in England. This provides a strong case for further action. Interventions such as public education campaigns, enforcement of age-of-sale regulations and greater tax rises—yes, a Tory is calling for extra tax rises—are effective in reducing youth uptake, but sustainable funding is needed to achieve this.
The Government were due to respond to the prevention Green Paper consultation on 6 January. Two months on, a response setting out further proposals to increase the rate of decline in smoking prevalence is urgently needed. I know that we have had a Government reshuffle, but I am glad that the Minister survived it. I think that this is probably her first response to a debate on smoking, but I hope that she can set out some of the plans she has to achieve this aim.
The range of measures that I hope the Government are considering are set out in a wonderful document named “Roadmap to a Smokefree 2030”, which was endorsed by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health and by 68 other organisations. We will be launching the document in Parliament on 28 April 2020, and I extend an invitation to my hon. Friend the Minister to attend that event, where I hope she will address us as well. I hope that she will tell us this evening when we can expect the Government’s response, and that the response will set out the “further proposals” outlined in the Green Paper to drive down smoking prevalence and ensure that we reach a smoke-free Britain in 2030.
If tobacco manufacturers are offering to give the Government £1 billion as part of a corporate social responsibility public relations exercise, the industry clearly has the money to pay for the tobacco control measures that are needed to mitigate the harm that it causes. The all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health has advocated for the application of the “polluter pays” principle, making the industry pay for the damage that its products do. As the Green Paper highlighted, the US and France have both adopted this approach to funding tobacco control. The mechanism to raise revenue from tobacco manufacturers could be established based on the powers set out in the National Health Service Act 2006 that are already used for the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.
Such a fund could pay for the evidence-based measures needed to achieve a smoke-free 2030. Those measures could include—this list is not exclusive—public education campaigns. Funding for these campaigns has consistently decreased. In 2019, for example, there was no TV advertising for the Stoptober campaign, and this year there was no January health harms campaign to encourage smokers to make a new year’s resolution to attempt to quit smoking. Providing a source of revenue for local tobacco control measures, including enforcement activity and the provision of support to smokers seeking to quit, would also definitely help. Funding for trading standards has fallen substantially in recent years, from £213 million in 2010 to £124 million in 2016. The National Audit Office estimates that the number of full-time equivalent trading standards staff has decreased by 56% in seven years.
We could also have regional tobacco control programmes. In the five years from 2012 to 2017, areas with a regional programme had an average percentage point decline of 5.1, compared with 4 in the rest of the country, yet funding for those programmes has been cut as the public health grant allocations to local authorities have reduced. Establishing an initiative such as a smoke-free 2030 fund is also popular, with 72% of the public supporting making tobacco manufacturers pay a levy or licence fee to the Government for measures to help smokers to quit and to prevent youth uptake.
Given the urgent need to increase the rate of decline in smoking prevalence and the further measures needed to achieve that, will the Government commit to consult on legislation to create a smoke-free 2030 fund? Given that we have the Budget next week, will the Minister lobby our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to introduce such a fund?
Further measurers could be taken. The prevention Green Paper made the commitment:
“Further proposals for moving towards a smoke-free 2030 will be set out at a later date.”
In the absence of a response to the Green Paper consultation, I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that her Department is working on the proposals and that they include the measures set out in the APPG’s report “Delivering the vision of a ‘Smokefree Generation’”, which I am sure she has read.
Reducing the affordability of tobacco is highly effective in reducing smoking rates and can be achieved through a combination of tax increases and enforcement activity to reduce the size of the illicit market. We know that affordability has the most impact on those who are the most price sensitive: young people and poorer smokers—cheap and illicit tobacco is disproportionately bought by poorer smokers. Reducing affordability will encourage people to quit smoking.
Next week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out his first Budget. I hope to hear that the tax escalator on manufactured cigarettes will be reintroduced for this Parliament. The escalator should be increased from 2% to 5% above inflation, to help pay for the measures to combat smoking. I also hope to see a further increase for hand-rolled tobacco, because the price differential between manufactured cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco means that people, particularly those on lower incomes, are more likely to hand-roll, and obviously they would continue to do so rather than quit. An additional tax increase above inflation would avoid that.
Since 2000, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has implemented a well-funded and effective strategy that has reduced the size of the illicit market, but the UK has now ratified the illicit trade protocol of the framework convention on tobacco control and implemented tracking and tracing of cigarettes under the requirements of the tobacco products directive. I am sure that Ministers agree that, now that we have left the European Union, it is an appropriate time for HMRC to review and refresh that strategy, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that in her response.
As I said at the start of my speech, the ambition to end smoking in England by 2030 is laudable and I strongly endorse it—as, I trust, do the majority of Members—but there are clear risks that we will not achieve that without further action and sustained funding. The latest attempts by Philip Morris International to influence Government health policies and to roll back current regulation show once again that the industry cannot be trusted, and the Government must continue to uphold our strong commitment to article 5.3.
Philip Morris International’s proposal to provide £1 billion over 10 years shows that the tobacco industry clearly has the money to pay for the harm it causes. The public support making the industry pay through legislation to create a fund that would be used to support existing smokers to quit and to prevent uptake among young people. There is clearly an urgent need for the Government to set out further proposals to help us reach a smoke-free England by 2030, and I hope that today the Minister will confirm that we can expect the imminent publication of the Government’s response to the prevention Green Paper consultation.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am pleased to have this unexpected opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it. My politics and his are far apart, but we are brothers in the cause of eradicating smoking. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the APPG and am pleased to serve as his vice-chair.
There are around 23,000 smokers in my Stockton North constituency, and 60% of them want to quit. Sadly, due to cuts to Stockton Council’s budget and to budgets across the north-east, councils in the area have cut stop smoking services by 10% in just two years. I will come back to that later.
Requiring tobacco manufacturers to pay into the smoke-free 2030 fund mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would provide sustainable funding to motivate the smokers in my constituency who want to quit, or who want to give quitting a go, and would fund the specialist support for those who need it. That would be the correct way forward, and it would provide the necessary transparency without the likes of PMI being given free rein to dictate or influence public policy.
I pay tribute to successive Governments for making tremendous progress. We had the smoke-free pubs and restaurants under Labour, and of course we have had the point-of-sale stuff under recent Conservative Governments. That all plays a part, but the extent to which smoking is reducing has continually slowed down and we need to accelerate it again.
Although this is a national issue, I will be parochial this afternoon and outline the challenge we face in my part of the world. In Stockton-on-Tees, 16.4% of the population smoke, compared with 16% across the north-east and an English average of 14.4%. Some 17.7% of women are smokers when their babies are delivered, compared with a national average of 10.6%, and that has significant implications for stillbirths, neonatal deaths and birth weight.
Those statistics hide the reality of what is happening in my constituency. In my inner-city wards, the prevalence of smoking, including during pregnancy, is much higher. Our leafy suburbs and nicer areas—perhaps I should say more affluent areas—bring down the average to that lower level of 16.4%. I do not know of many households in the town centre ward of my constituency in which people do not smoke, which is a terrible situation. We need targeted support for them.
The prevalence of smoking among adults in my area with serious mental health illnesses is 40%, which is actually slightly below the English average of 40.5%, but it still needs to be tackled. In 2018-19, there were 2,780 smoking-attributable hospital admissions in Stockton-on-Tees, which is a rate of 2,474 per 100,000 of population, notably above the English average of 1,612.
From 2016 to 2018, 1,013 deaths in Stockton-on-Tees were attributable to smoking, which is also significantly above the English average. There were 398 deaths from lung cancer and 325 deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and over 80% of those disease cases are caused by smoking. Again, from 2016 to 2018 there were 23 smoking-attributable stillbirths in Stockton-on-Tees, which is above the per population average.
I have talked about the more affluent areas of Stockton-on-Tees, and the smoking rate among people in managerial and professional occupations is 9.3%. The rate rises to 11.7% among people in intermediate-level occupations and to 23.1% among people in routine and manual occupations. Men are more likely to smoke than women, with a smoking rate of 17% compared with 13%.
We have much to do if we are to do this, and we have to do it right, without allowing tobacco companies to play the sort of role proposed by PMI, because this is an issue of health inequality. A smoking rate of 16.4% in my constituency compares with 8.3% in mid-Suffolk, where the Minister’s constituency is located.
Like the hon. Member for Harrow East, I was concerned to hear least week that England is not on track to reach the 5% ambition by 2030. The 20-year difference between when the richest and poorest communities are expected to be smoke free shows that we are failing to support the most vulnerable in our constituencies. So does the Minister agree that the smoke-free 2030 ambition must be more than a headline target and that the Government must ensure that they will also deliver a smoke-free generation for communities such as mine in Stockton?
The hon. Gentleman mentioned illegal tobacco, so I wish to say just a few words about that. During the general election, I was on the Hardwick estate in my constituency, where a woman was standing at a door. I was walking up the path and then I realised that money was changing hands. The money changed hands and the door closed. When it reopened, someone had a package in their hand. I know what it was, but the woman saw me and said, “Just wait a few minutes.” She then said, “How can I help you?” I nearly said, “You could help by not operating an illegal tobacco operation”, but I was looking for their vote, so perhaps I prejudiced my principles on that occasion.
These things are happening day in, day out. My wife was a school nurse and she went to schools to talk about smoking. She used to deploy the economic argument, saying to the kids, “If you have so many cigarettes a week, it will cost you £10. Over a year that works out at £520 and that would take the family on a short holiday.” One day, a child put up his hand and said, “Miss, you’ve got the price wrong. They are only £3 a packet from—”. He named a person around the corner from where he lived. So it is clear that we still have a problem to solve and we have an education problem to deal with as well.
Finally, I know that PMI’s proposals for a “tobacco transition fund" in partnership with the industry have already been put to Parliament in a ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my former colleague Kevin Barron in the last Parliament. Kevin is a long-standing supporter of tobacco control, but he admitted to The Guardian that he had had discussions with PMI before tabling the Bill, that he now supported partnering with the industry and that he had spoken to Ministers about the proposals. Kevin was probably the greatest parliamentary campaigner, perhaps even better than the hon. Member for Harrow East, against the tobacco industry for nearly all his 36 years as an MP, so I was really concerned that he was prepared to work with a tobacco company, albeit with the best of intentions, to change the law. Although some people may have been convinced that PMI has been reborn as a public health champion, that is certainly not the case for the all-party group on smoking and health, and I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government agree on that. PMI’s attempts to whitewash its reputation are nauseating, in a company that continues to promote its deadly cigarettes to children and young people whenever and wherever it can get away with it.
So there is still much yet to be done, and I will be interested to near what the Minister has to say. I want her not just to rule out any sort of relationship with PMI, except perhaps taxing it a bit more, with no recognition of its bid to influence public policy; I also want to hear what the Government are now going to do, perhaps in replying to the Green Paper, to get us the resources we need into public health and elsewhere to start again and accelerate the number of people who quit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate on the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control. His passionate work on tobacco harms, including through his chairmanship of the all-party group, and the work of his worthy sidekick as co-chair, continues to keep us focused on what we have to do and on our goal of being smoke-free by 2030. I thank them for that. I agree with both of them that smoking is one of the most significant public health challenges that we face today and that, sadly, it is one that disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups, with the resultant impact on their health and their finances.
This year, the WHO framework convention is celebrating its 15th anniversary. Over those 15 years, the parties to the convention have worked towards a tobacco-free world. We have seen encouraging improvements in tobacco control worldwide, but there is still much more work to be done to protect the world’s population from the harms of a tobacco epidemic.
As a recognised world leader in tobacco control, the UK is firmly committed to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control—which I will now abbreviate to FCTC for all our sakes—and we will remain an active member. I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to remind us how important the obligations under the convention are. In answer to his direct question, we will remain fully committed to the convention and, importantly, to article 5.3 during the transition period and beyond. I can assure him, as my predecessor did, that we write to NHS trusts and local authorities to remind them of their obligations under article 5.3 to protect public health interests from tobacco industry interference. I am proud that, in the first global tobacco industry interference index, published last year, we were rated No. 1 for the work we do to protect health policy from tobacco companies, but I take on board the fact that we need to make sure we continue on that path.
It is estimated that at least 8 million deaths around the world every year are linked to tobacco—more than for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. Some 80% of the 1 billion smokers live in low and middle-income countries. That puts a huge strain on the development of those countries and their achievement of the sustainable development goals. There is high demand from such countries for help to implement tobacco control measures. That is why, as a global leader, the UK is providing support, via official development assistance, to the FCTC 2030 project, working with low and middle-income countries to support its implementation, with the ultimate aim of reducing the burden of tobacco-related deaths and diseases.
The project has received praise from countries participating, as well as from the global public health and development communities. It has also helped to raise the UK’s profile as a global leader in tobacco control, and is strengthening its global reach. Building on that success, we are increasing capacity within the existing budget to include several more countries to support over years four and five.
In the UK, smoking prevalence is at the lowest ever rate on record and is falling, but we are not complacent—as has been pointed out, the rate of decline is slowing. Around 78,000 people die every year in this country from smoking-related illnesses. As I said yesterday during the debate on health inequalities, and as my hon. Friend pointed out so eloquently, we know that the smoking habit particularly affects disadvantaged communities. We must end that, and our prevention Green Paper sets out the ambition to be smoke-free by 2030. That is undoubtedly a challenging ambition. The public consultation that closed in October had 1,600 responses—more than double the number we usually get—and it is taking some time to go through the analysis. We are analysing the proposals and developing our own response, which will be with Members shortly.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate everything the Minister is saying. It is the 2030 target I am really interested in. The estimate a couple of weeks ago was that, with current programming, we are 20 years behind where we need to be. Will she tell us how we are going to achieve that target instead?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and, yes, I will. There is a need to be smarter with what we do. As was stated, we will achieve the target in some communities, but not in others, so refocusing on where we have the problem must be part of the strategy. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman appreciate, I do not want to pre-empt what we publish in the Green Paper.
I acknowledge and thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for the report by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, which I have read and which sets out the group’s recommendations, including on the smoke-free 2030 fund. I assure them that the Department will speak to Her Majesty’s Treasury to discuss possible financial levers to support our smoke-free ambitions. However, I also expect that both of them—and particularly my hon. Friend, who is indefatigable in his lobbying on this matter—will lobby the Chancellor themselves.
Across the country, people are tackling the harms of tobacco every single day. During a recent visit to Tameside Hospital, I witnessed at first hand the commitment and dedication of healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of an innovative approach to reducing smoking in pregnancy. While the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was speaking, I was reflecting on the fact that many of the things that he was saying about his own constituency were very similar to those in this particular project. The prevalence within their local community to start with was much higher than average, and the people who were starting to smoke as a habit were of a much younger age. Therefore, by the time these young women were pregnant, they had been smoking for a longer period of time, making cessation more difficult. The project was thoughtful and holistic in terms of the agencies that it used, and the way that it wrapped around the young pregnant women. It actually reached out into their families, encouraging partners, mothers and other family members to support them. That gave the young women a great deal of motivation. I spoke to one young father who had not yet managed to quit his habit, but he had taken many of the messages on board, was not smoking in their home, and was actually attempting to change his behaviour for the long-term benefit of his future’s baby’s health.
This is a particular passion of mine. I believe that we give both people a much better, healthy start if we can tackle pregnant mums as a particular cohort, because, obviously, we not only help the mother, but, as my hon. Friend has said, help the future health of the baby and ensure that a health compromised by smoking in pregnancy is not something that then follows them through their lifetime. I spoke to those mums and partners about how using a joined-up approach could work and I would be delighted if my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman would talk to me further about the matter.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment to this undoubted health challenge and also for what she said about pregnant young women. It is not the case that these young women who are found to be pregnant are automatically routed to smoking cessation services yet—neither are their partners. It is, in the long-term, an NHS plan to do that. Given what my hon. Friend has said and that she has seen the success of the trials, will she try to bring that plan forward so that we actually give every pregnant woman who smokes the opportunity to be seen by smoking cessation services? In that way they can not only understand what they should do and how they can quit, but see the damage that they are causing to their unborn child as a result of continuing to smoke.
Jo Churchill
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I am speaking with my officials all the time about how we can make programmes such as this more effective and ensure that they reach out, but they have to be part of a comprehensive programme. We have to understand how we can best help communities most challenged by smoking, who fall outside the 2025 target; we need to pay attention to the detail if we are to address their 20-year trajectory. I would be delighted to have a further conversation on that matter with my hon. Friend at some point in the future.
I wish to assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to build on the success of work so far to sustain our global efforts to tackle the tobacco epidemic and work towards England becoming smoke-free by 2030. I can also assure him that I am committed to seeing more individuals receive help so that they can successfully quit the habit.
Bob Blackman
Before the Minister sits down, let me counsel her that one of her predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), was asked during his first outing at the Dispatch Box in Health questions when the prevention Green Paper would be published, and—to the consternation of his officials—he announced, “This month”. Therefore, if the Minister would do us the honour of saying when we will get the response to the Green Paper, I am sure—to the consternation of her officials—we would get some urgent action.
Jo Churchill
I will resist the temptation to name a date, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that I have one or two other things on my desk at the moment, but we will make sure that the document is with him as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Agriculture Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2020 - (5 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning everyone for what might be the last day of consideration in Committee of the Agriculture Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room.
Clause 40
Power to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture: general
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would require that the power to make regulations extending to Scotland can only be exercised with the consent of Scottish Ministers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 99, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has consulted each devolved authority on a draft of the regulations.”
Deidre Brock
I will be brief, because this is basically a rerun of arguments I have made in Committee on earlier amendments on Scottish Ministers getting a say over areas of devolved competence. We are concerned that the views of Scottish Ministers might be overlooked or overruled in future. In our view, the agreement of Scottish Ministers should be sought in all areas of devolved competence. Again, I cannot see why it is possible in other Bills being scrutinised by this Parliament to insert that the agreement of the devolved Administrations is required, not simply that their views will be taken into account, only for that perhaps to be subsequently ignored by this or future Secretaries of State. I will leave it there, but our views on the issue are particularly clear. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to be back for a busy day in the Agriculture Bill Committee.
We do not dispute that agriculture is a devolved matter. However, this particular provision is about ensuring UK-wide compliance with an international agreement. That responsibility is, rightly, reserved to the UK Government. This is not about whether the devolved Administrations have the competence to implement and observe international agreements; it is about ensuring UK-wide compliance in an international sphere.
We therefore maintain that the clause is reserved, and we cannot concede that the regulations may be made only with consent from Scottish Ministers, because that would impinge on our powers to ensure our compliance with the World Trade Organisation agreement. We recognise that devolved Administrations have significant interests in these matters, and we are working closely with those Administrations on the draft regulations. We have made a firm commitment to consultation now and in future in the making and operation of the regulations.
Turning to amendment 99, the clause underpins the Government’s commitment to continued compliance with WTO regulation following European Union exit. The UK is a founding member of the WTO, but, as a member of the EU, was bound by the regulations of the common agricultural policy, which ensured compliance by all member states with WTO obligations. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will have to have a new regime and a new approach to ensuring compliance with our continuing WTO obligations.
Agriculture is devolved in the UK, so each Administration will decide their own future policy on farm subsidies. The clause allows each Administration to do that, but it gives the Government powers to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO obligations. We will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations officials, as we have been doing for more than a year. I am assured that the relationship is good and that that work is going well. It is important to ensure that all parties’ views are properly considered.
An agreement between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government contains commitments that the draft regulations will be presented to the UK’s four Agriculture Ministers with the aim of securing agreement, followed by an exchange of letters. In that context, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendment.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to speak—I am double hatted—not as a Whip, but as a shadow Minister with responsibility for European affairs, formerly Brexit, which I still am at the moment.
I shall speak to amendment 99, which I hope will offer a balance. The Minister obviously understands that we recognise that WTO compliance is a reserved matter, but also that agriculture is devolved. We therefore feel that placing requirements on the devolved legislatures, without a corresponding requirement on the Government to at least consult them, is not fair. This is a delicate balance to strike, and we feel that amendment 99 is a balanced way forward.
It is interesting that clauses 40 to 42 will mean that we have to adhere to WTO rules—specifically, the agreement on agriculture. They bind us to supranational rules, which is an interesting take on where we are as a country, given that so many Ministers and Brexit-supporting MPs have for many years made the Brexit case by stating, and in fact restating, their devotion to sovereignty and their desire for the UK Parliament to have complete control of our laws, borders and money, to use a phrase, which they appeared to want. However, here we are putting into legislation the requirement to adhere to a supranational, unelected body, with its own court of dispute resolution, the findings of which we will all be bound by. I want to make sure that Government Members are aware of that.
Thangam Debbonaire
Good. Excellent. We have that on the record. I happen to like supranational rules—provided that nation states have debated and agreed to them—which advance the course of human wellbeing, equality, sustainable development, animal welfare, biodiversity and all those other wonderful things that the Bill will put into law. I would like us to amend the Bill with amendment 99, so that the way we do that balances out the responsibilities between the nations of the United Kingdom.
Signing up to an international treaty is not a loss of sovereignty—clearly the Government agree in relation to the WTO, which is quite interesting—but an exercise of it. We believe that co-operation with other nation states is good. Contrary to what some have said, nations do not do better when they isolate themselves from supranational co-operation; I definitely heard a Minister say that recently.
I am curious, because it appears from these clauses—I might have this wrong—that the Government seem to want to take back control not to share that control with the nations of the UK, but to concentrate power in ministerial hands. We would like to make sure that that power is properly shared with our elected representatives in the regions and nations.
Clauses 40 to 42 are perfect examples of that concentration, because they give Ministers the power to make demands of the elected legislatures on a devolved matter, but with no reciprocal requirement on the Government to involve or even consult those legislatures. Given that the previous Government found that the WTO-only option was most damaging to the economy, and that the current Government do not seem to want to release any more recent assessment of the impact of downgrading our ambition to the much inferior WTO-only agreement, we think it even more necessary to make sure that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.
WTO means tariffs on some products and a regime for which our farms are not ready. The amendment cannot fully ameliorate the potential damage to our economy and farms from reverting to a WTO-only deal, but it would at least mean that the devolved legislatures were properly involved.
During the evidence session, I asked the Welsh Government’s director of environment and rural affairs whether he wanted a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved legislatures on the operation of those provisions. I said:
“This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?”
He said:
“This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about”—
I am absolutely sure that that is true—
“regarding the equivalent text in the previous version…we would love a consent provision”.
He also said that
“in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister”—
that is the previous Minister, who is now Secretary of State—
“has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him”—
presumably, this now means the new Minister—
“making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process.”
He wanted there to be a way that any opposition by a devolved legislature could be presented to the House of Commons. He said:
“We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.”
I do not doubt that, but when I asked him again about what that agreed way of working was, saying that it was not in the Bill, he confirmed that it is not in the Bill, but said:
“It is an exchange of letters”.––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2020; c. 94, Q145-46.]
Exchange of letters is a good thing, but it is not legally binding. Bilateral conversations, again, are a good thing, and I have absolutely no doubt that DEFRA, the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations are consulting properly, but we want this in the Bill, because an exchange of letters is not adequate. It relies on the good will of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Minister has good will towards all the devolved nations, but we want to ensure that that good will is bound into law with a modest requirement to consult the devolved legislatures.
I ask Government Members, and the Minister, to note that the backdrop to these clauses is that the WTO now appears to be no longer just the backstop, but the frontstop—I do not know whether there is such a thing as a frontstop, but this seems to me to be a problem, because that is the worst of all the possible options identified by the previous Government. At the very least, we should be ensuring that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.
Victoria Prentis
Very briefly, the hon. Lady has made an entertaining speech, in which, I politely suggest, she is trying on this particular issue to have her cake and eat it. The reason we cannot agree to these amendments—though we share her views on the importance of talking to and consulting with devolved Administrations; I do not think there is any doubt in this room about that—is that we keep as a reserved matter compliance with WTO rules. We are absolutely part of the WTO; she is right on that. I take on the chin her sharper comments about whether that is fully understood, but it is certainly understood by those on the Government Benches, and she should be in no doubt about that.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about what Mr Render said in evidence and the assurance given by my predecessor, who is now Secretary of State, I am happy to look at whether we should restate that commitment, and I undertake to do so.
Thangam Debbonaire
I completely understand that agriculture is devolved and compliance is reserved. That is why our amendment would require consultation to take place. It would not be a veto on the part of the devolveds, which I understand others might wish to have. I would like the Minister to consider that as a compromise.
Victoria Prentis
We need to ensure that the provisions made under the clause are fair and proportionate. We want to involve devolved Administrations and I have set out how we intend to do so. In my view, that is adequate, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw her amendment.
Deidre Brock
I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West that power is being concentrated under this clause towards the UK Government and the Secretary of State. Once again—when there is a common view among the four National Farmers Unions of the four nations that any common frameworks covering anything to do with agriculture must be agreed, not simply consulted upon—I fail to see why this quite reasonable suggestion is continually disagreed with by Ministers.
I speak here, I suppose, on behalf of the Scottish Government, rather than every devolved Administration, because I would not presume to do that. However, I assume that they feel exactly the same and follow the views of their National Farmers Unions as well. The possibility exists within this clause and others for our Ministers’ policy choices to be constrained. Those policy choices reflect closely the conditions of their own nations, and they must be taken into account. Their views must be listened to and their agreement sought.
That is why, although I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bristol West has said, properly involving the devolved Administrations means respecting their wishes and seeking their consent, rather than simply seeking to consult with them but ultimately, perhaps, ignoring them. I will therefore push the amendment to a vote.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 42, page 38, line 17, leave out from “support” to end of line 19.
This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State as final arbiter in dispute resolution.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 42, page 38, line 20, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State.
Deidre Brock
These amendments once again go to the heart of the devolved settlement, and the question of whether for Scotland, “taking back control” means actually taking back control. The principle is that Scotland should be the arbiter of her own schemes and provisions, and should decide what is covered in them. There should be no role for a Secretary of State in the UK Government to be an overlord for Scotland’s agricultural sector, or for its support schemes. It makes sense for Scottish Ministers, overseen by the Scottish Parliament, to make those decisions.
I appreciate that, as we have already heard, the opinion of the UK Government is that compliance with the WTO agreement is an international obligation, and that the final decision should rest with them. I remind them that the Scottish Administration have had cases where they have been held liable for infringements of international agreements. I argue that Scotland’s Government should not be reliant on the UK Government to get those decisions right in order to avoid being stung by the consequences. Scotland is more than capable, I assure all hon. Members, of getting these things absolutely right on its own.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
It seems somewhat ironic that with all those policies, the Scottish National party would abdicate the decisions to Brussels; certainly on agriculture and fisheries policies, particularly those involving trade, Brussels would be making the important decisions.
Deidre Brock
I am not really inclined to rehearse all the arguments of the Brexit situation back and forth—they have been ongoing for some time. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Scottish Government’s views on these issues, as well as those of the SNP group at Westminster.
I will refrain from pointing out that the WTO is falling apart at the moment, unfortunately, as a result of the actions of the US President, because that would be beneath my dignity, but it should be borne in mind that without a tribunal system, the WTO simply does not function. The point of the amendments is simply to ensure that Scotland has the freedom of movement to ensure that it complies with the agreements, whether or not the UK does. That seems a very fair and equitable way to do things. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration and agree to my proposals.
Thangam Debbonaire
I wish to make a few remarks on amendments 32 and 33. We will not support amendment 32 because it provides a veto for Scotland on the reserved matter of WTO compliance. The hon. Lady is right about the WTO; we could have a whole discussion about why and how we have ended up with the WTO and where we seem to be going, but today is not the day for that.
On amendment 33, we still feel that our amendment to clause 40 would have provided a good compromise of a consultation process, whereas the SNP amendment removes the requirement on the devolved Administrations to provide that information. It would have been better to be more balanced. We will not vote against that amendment, but we wish the Minister to take into account the fact that we offered a compromise in amendment 99, and we urge her to consider that at a later stage.
Victoria Prentis
Starting with amendment 32, now that the UK has left the EU, we have become a fully independent member of the WTO. That means that the UK Government are responsible for ensuring that the whole of the UK complies with its obligations. In fully federal countries such as the USA and Canada, the WTO always insists that agricultural trade is reserved—that is how the WTO functions with federal states. One of the UK Government’s obligations under WTO rules is to notify the UK’s use of agricultural support to the WTO membership. It is essential that the nations of the UK take a consistent approach to classifying agricultural support in accordance with those requirements.
Clause 42 provides for a decision-making process that will, quite properly, involve all four nations of the UK. That will be set out in regulations made under the clause. Where a decision cannot be reached through that process, the UK Government, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, must ultimately be responsible for the final decision, but we hope that agreement can be reached. The amendment would remove the safeguard of final decision making from the Secretary of State and potentially impede our ability to comply with WTO obligations where we cannot reach agreement, although we hope that we will.
Turning to amendment 33, the whole clause must be read in the context of “securing compliance” with the WTO agreement on agriculture, which is incontrovertibly a reserved matter. We need to be able to reassure WTO members that, despite the unusual degree of agricultural devolution in the UK, we have the means to ensure that we will have the relevant data to be able to comply. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations for securing, from any part of the UK, the information necessary for the UK Government to meet those international obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I heard what the Minister said and we are clearly having great difficulty in coming to an agreement between the two Governments and between us on the Committee. From my point of view, decision-making powers that allow not for agreement but simply for consultation do not seem fair or equitable, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof Chloramphenicol Chloroform Chlorpromazine Colchicine Dapsone Dimetridazole Metronizadole Nitrofurans (including furazolidone) Ronizadole Thyrostatic substances Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives Beta-agonists Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenic action.
New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day—
‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.
(3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, mean—
(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),
(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),
(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.
(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’
New clause 7—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.’
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.
New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certain animals and animal products: substances—
‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell or supply for human consumption any animal—
(a) which contains or to which there has been administered—
(i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
unless that substance was administered in accordance with subsection (4);
(b) that is an aquaculture animal to which—
(i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
has been administered;
(c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at a concentration exceeding the maximum residue limit; or
(d) to which a medicinal product has been administered if the withdrawal period for that product has not expired.
(2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal the sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1).
(3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale before the end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse to which has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist in accordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that the type and date of treatment was entered on the horse’s passport by the veterinary surgeon directly responsible for the treatment.
(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived wholly or partly from an animal to which has been administered a compliant veterinary medicinal product—
(a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative of these substances which readily yields the parent compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site of application, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action or gestagenic action, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) maximum residue limits for pharmacologically active substances, and
(b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes of prohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited substances].
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinary medicinal product if it complies with the requirements of Regulation 25 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015), and
“withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015).
(8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’
New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.
(2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.’
New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of a chicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from a chicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house in which the chicken was reared—
(a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m2 of usable area, or
(b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area if the requirements of subsection (3) were met.
(3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper must—
(a) maintain and, on request, make available to the Secretary of State, documentation in the house giving a detailed description of the production systems, in particular information on technical details of the house and its equipment, including—
(i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of the surfaces occupied by the chickens;
(ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heating system (including their location), and a ventilation plan, detailing target air quality parameters (such as airflow, air speed and temperature);
(iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location);
(iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failure of any equipment essential for the health and well-being of the chickens;
(v) floor type and litter normally used; and
(vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilation and alarm systems;
(b) keep up to date the documentation referred to in subparagraph (a);
(c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilation and, if necessary, heating and cooling systems designed, constructed and operated in such a way that—
(i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed 20 parts per million and the concentration of carbon dioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million, when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads;
(ii) when the outside temperature measured in the shade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature does not exceed the outside temperature by more than 3°C; and
(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, the average relative humidity measured inside the house during a continuous period of 48 hours does not exceed 70%.
(4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in the United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that—
(a) documentation equivalent to that specified in subsection (3) was maintained by the keeper and was available for supply to the appropriate regulatory authority, and
(b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared were equivalent to, or better than, those set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean a conventionally reared meat chicken.’
New schedule 1—Prohibited substances—
1 Class I prohibited substances
2 Class II prohibited substances
3 Class III prohibited substances
4 Class IV prohibited substances
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to continue serving under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am afraid that we will not be rattling on at quite the pace you have managed so far.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be delighted that today we are going to unleash, as the Prime Minister would say, the full talents of the shadow Front-Bench team and Labour Back-Bench Members. Again, I encourage the Government to do the same. Yesterday morning, while eating my porridge, I enjoyed a thoughtful contribution on the “Today” programme—territory currently uninhabited by Ministers of course—from the hon. Member for Devizes. It is an odd world where Back-Bench Members are free to speak on national media but are constrained on detailed scrutiny. The Government love power but may be less keen on responsibility.
A document relevant to our discussion has once again been released in the middle of a morning. This time, it is a 109-page document on bovine TB. Although it is another favourite document of mine, hon. Members will be grateful that I will not subject it to rigorous scrutiny, but one of my hon. Friends will talk to it this afternoon.
Let me get to the core business. Throughout the Committee, we have said that it is crucial that, in any future trade deals, imported agricultural goods meet our animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards to protect our consumers and prevent our farmers being undercut by lower-standard imports. The Bill improves the standards that we set ourselves by reducing environmental impacts and incentivising public goods, such as high welfare standards. If we do not have coherency between our agricultural and trade policies, however, the Government might as well make the entire Bill null and void.
Hon. Members will have noticed in the oral evidence sessions that I asked almost every witness the same question. Although they put it in different ways, they all gave similar answers and agreed that it is the key issue. The Government have said that they are committed not to allow future trade deals to weaken our food standards—I anticipate the Minister’s response—but the problem is that we have yet to find anyone who believes that. I suspect the same goes for most Government Members. There is a simple solution, which we will say again and again: put it in the Bill. I am tempted to follow the Prime Minister’s lead and get Opposition Members to chant, but I think that is a bit naff, so we will not do that. We will try to do better.
We are sceptical because the actions of the Government and the Prime Minister seem to point in a different direction. On Sunday, the Secretary of State had the opportunity, but again refused to rule out chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef being imported from the US under a new deal.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we have put it into law that we cannot import chlorinated chicken? We would require primary legislation for that to be removed once we have left the EU, so it is not up for discussion. It is in the legislation. All hon. Members will have a chance to vote on that.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are giving all the signs of having no interest in protecting standards, but did he not note Liz Truss’ announcement of our red lines, which are standards? That has reassured my farmers locally, who are very happy for all amendments on trade standards to go into a trade Bill, not the Agriculture Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I am delighted that we are getting some rumbustious debate. I will come to the point later of the exact legal position on the current status, which I suspect is not nearly so clear. I am not convinced that many are as reassured by the Secretary of State for International Trade’s document, which I have started reading, as the hon. Lady has, but I am glad that some of her constituents are satisfied, because many are not.
We know that the Prime Minister will not prioritise alignment with EU standards in the upcoming EU trade deal. When asked last month about lower-standard American products coming to the UK, he described such fears as “hysterical” and “mumbo-jumbo”. Given his past record, as I take that as, “Yes, we should be very worried indeed.”
If the Minister is in any doubt about the need to include a safeguard for our production standards in the Bill, I point to the comments made by a Government adviser on food strategy at the weekend, which reveal that the iconoclasts running the show have little regard for protecting our farmers and the domestic production of food. The Mail on Sunday article was a classic of its type, including comments such as
“Britain doesn’t need famers,”
according to the adviser, and
“the food sector is not ‘critically important’ to the economy.”
It concluded with the memorable message from the Mail on Sunday to the Government:
“Britain doesn’t need farms? Find another box to think outside!”
Alicia Kearns
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that email was sent in a personal capacity by an adviser? It is MPs and Ministers who make legislation, not advisers—I am pretty sure about that. [Interruption.] I do not know who that individual adviser is, so clearly he is not advising my views. The Secretary of State for International Trade, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Prime Minister have all made it clear that the points the adviser makes are not Government policy. We can either listen to nonsensical personal emails or pay attention to what those on the Front Bench are saying. I think they have been clear that the Mail on Sunday story was complete nonsense. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that when they refer to other hon. Members they need to use their constituency titles.
Daniel Zeichner
I have to say that I do not normally find myself in agreement with the Daily Mail, but on this occasion there may be something in it. The important point is that there are clearly people close to Government who have dramatic views that seem different to those of the vast majority of Conservative Members, as well as Labour Members. It is a question for the Government to decide who they choose to seek advice from, but it can hardly be denied that it is out there.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in an earlier evidence session George Monbiot advocated for precisely those points, and argued for desisting in the production of sheep and cattle on the uplands and planting them with trees? Does he subscribe to that view, as espoused by The Guardian?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a subtle difference between witness evidence and the evidence that has been given in the important Dimbleby review on our future food policy. I think there is a difference, but, as always, I respect his observation.
Moving on from jousting about newspapers, it is important that to have a discussion about levels of food security, as I have mentioned. It is an intellectually plausible position to say that we do not have to produce our own food and that we could become like Singapore. That is an important political debate that should be had transparently, not in private emails between advisers. Without proper legal protection in place, many people will feel that whatever the Government say will just be warm words.
To go back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, at the last DEFRA questions the previous Secretary of State said pretty much what she just said. She said:
“Our high environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards are already in law, including legislating to prevent the importation of chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 438.]
We were interested by that statement. Can the Minister clarify further the statement that they are “already in law” by providing the details of the legislation where those standards can be found? Can she explain what mechanism would be used if the Government are required in a trade negotiation to amend or remove any of the standards and describe, in that scenario, the level of parliamentary scrutiny that would apply?
That should be good ground for the Minister as she is an esteemed lawyer. I am neither esteemed nor a lawyer, so I was grateful that, after the exchange at DEFRA questions, the shadow Secretary of State sought advice. We have advice from the House of Commons Library and—guess what?—it is complicated. Inevitably, trying to unravel the complexity of bringing EU law into domestic law and the overlaps is difficult. I suspect the law would need to be tested and, as ever, different lawyers would give different advice; that tends to happen. Some think that EU-derived domestic legislation covering these matters could, in some circumstances, be changed by the Government using delegated powers in the Food Safety Act 1990, without the need even to seek parliamentary approval, let alone primary legislation.
We are questioning the Government on this. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State queried it with the previous Secretary of State, and we await a response with interest, because it is an important point. However, the seeming lack of clarity hardly fills us with confidence, because this is such an issue. Clearly, in the interests of certainty and clarity—which, in fairness, we can agree we do not have—we should put this in the Bill. We should agree an amendment to create a proper legislative guarantee that future trade deals will not allow imports of agricultural goods used to lower environmental, public health, and animal welfare standards. This is that amendment.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that it is strange that the shadow Minister wrote to the now Minister on 19 February on the specific question of standards already in law and, as of today, we have still have had no response?
Daniel Zeichner
It is, because it was made clear that there would be a clear response. I suspect that the issue is complicated and people are working on it, but I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. This is something we need clarity on.
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. His new clause talks about “agricultural goods”, which presumably includes animal feed. It is pretty much accepted that environmental standards in Brazil, Argentina, the United States and Canada are lower than ours. Would the new clause ban the importation of all agricultural feed, including soya beans and maize, into the United Kingdom, should the exporting country’s environmental standards not be as high as ours, given that those products are mixed, so it could not be done on an individual farm basis?
Daniel Zeichner
I fully accept that the provision would need to be thought through and worked through in future. My point is that in general we must be careful about such changes, because I do not want our agriculture sector to be put at a disadvantage.
We do not want what I have just been outlining to happen. I suspect that the Minister and the vast majority of her colleagues do not want it to happen either. I mentioned the chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and it is worth spending a moment to remind ourselves of the exact nature of the kinds of low-standard food imports that we need to guard against.
When it comes to a trade deal with the US, we know that by and large its regulations on farm animal welfare are substantially lower than those of the UK. My understanding is that the US has no federal regulations at all in many of the areas in which the UK has enacted detailed regulations. The RSPCA raised, in evidence, the fact that 55% of the pork meat and bacon that we eat is imported. Virtually all of it comes from the EU, which follows comparatively high standards of production.
If we start going to the US, where they still use sow stalls and inject pigs with ractopamine, both of which are rightly illegal in UK pig farming on animal welfare grounds, we completely undermine our moral commitments against those practices, and allow undercutting of our farmers, who are committed to such higher standards. I remind members of the Committee that ractopamine is a feed additive used to manipulate growth in pigs, which has been shown to be highly detrimental to pig welfare, causing lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath. There is a reason we do not use it. It is the same for hormone-treated beef, which is produced in the US by injecting cattle with growth hormones to generate greater mass more quickly. That is banned in the EU on animal welfare and public health grounds.
The issue with the chlorinated chicken produced in the US is that the chickens have been kept in such dismal and intensive conditions that the chlorine is required to wash off the pathogens that they have become infected with during rearing and slaughter. The principle is animal welfare, but there is also a real question over food safety. Of course, we heard evidence on that. It is fair to say that there is dispute about the comparative rates of food-borne illnesses in the US and the UK but, as we heard from Professor Keevil of the University of Southampton, there are now studies that suggest that chlorine washing is not as effective as was once thought, and can make pathogens undetectable without actually killing them, so that they may remain capable of causing disease.
I feel strongly that those are not products that we want on our shelves or in our freezer cabinets. I will echo the words of the president of the National Farmers Union, who last week delivered this statement to a clearly discomfited Secretary of State:
“To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here would not only be morally bankrupt, it would be the work of the insane.”
I might not have used exactly the same words, but I agree with the sentiment, and I think that the Secretary of State was discomfited because he knows that she is right.
It is crystal clear that we need a safeguard. How on earth do the Government expect to negotiate their way out of this, when the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has clearly said that chlorinated chicken must be part of any UK-US trade agreement? Why not come clean and admit that in the negotiations there will be trade-offs, one of which, sadly, could be selling out our farmers and our environment?
New clauses 30 to 32 are particularly interesting, and members of the Committee who have read them will note that they are detailed. They may think, “Gosh, what a clever bunch they are on the Labour side.” They may not—but it is actually better than that. Let me explain where the new clauses came from. I suspect that some Members already know, and I hope that the Minister was warned when she took the job. The new clauses—the exact words—were tabled to the previous Bill by none other than the current Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). That Bill never reached Report and there was no opportunity to debate the new clauses. I am grateful to eagle-eyed experts from an organisation that shall remain nameless—they know who they are—for drawing them to our attention.
We judge that it would be of use to the Committee to consider the new clauses. They are deeply probing and have an illustrious pedigree, because they first saw the light of day during the brief, tricky period when the current Secretary of State was on the Back Benches, having resigned his post over a difference of opinion with the then Prime Minister about our relationship with the European Union. To some extent, we are slightly puzzled that those amendments have not been re-tabled by the Government for this version of the Bill. It would be useful to hear the Minister explain why the Government apparently now feel that these worthy proposals, tabled then, are not worth revisiting now. I will choose my words carefully, because the Secretary of State is clearly not part of the Committee. I ask the Minister, why does she not agree with the proposals? Perhaps she does.
We were particularly struck by what these new clauses seemed to be looking to achieve. Members of the Committee will agree that they deal with complex and technical matters on which a degree of expertise is needed in matters of animal health and veterinary pharmaceutical practice. Our understanding is that the aim here was to place in primary legislation many of the protections and safeguards on food safety and animal welfare that already currently exist in secondary legislation, both retained EU and domestic. The force of the proposals would be to ban the sale of animals or products from animals that have been treated with a range of compounds whose use is currently illegal in this country, except in restricted circumstances where they are being used under veterinary supervision for veterinary therapeutic purposes, and only then if residues are acceptably low.
It is truly a fascinating read to see what these compounds include. Schedule 1 lists testosterone, progesterone, oestradiol 17β, stilbenes and trenbolone, which are all hormones permitted as growth promoters in US beef production. The beta-agonists listed are used as growth promoters, more commonly in pig production, and I believe that ractopamine, which I mentioned earlier, would be classified under that category.
Most interestingly, new clause 31 would prohibit the sale, for hygiene reasons, of any animal product that comes from animals being treated with any substance other than potable water for the purpose of removing surface contamination. By my understanding, that would essentially preclude the sale of chlorine or oplactose-acid washed chicken in this country.
Mr Goodwill
New clause 31 does not actually refer to post-slaughter use and, as it is sloppily drafted, would apply to the washing of show animals at shows, the use of saline solution for washing eyes or, indeed, the use of diluted sheep dip after docking of sheep. Does the hon. Member recognise that the new clause needs tightening up? It refers to an animal during its entire lifecycle.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I am hugely grateful to the right hon. Member, whose drafting skills I would happily draw on in trying to improve the amendments. He will reflect that the new clause was sloppily drafted not by Opposition Members, but by the current Secretary of State. We are very happy to work with the right hon. Member on improving it, but I think he knows what was being referred to in those circumstances.
It seems to us that the Government are currently refusing to include in the Bill a ban on food imports produced to lower standards than our own. They have also dodged amendments to the Bill that were suggested previously by the current Secretary of State himself, which seemed to aim to ensure the exact same thing—banning the sale of animal products in this country that had been subjected to chemicals and processes that we do currently allow here.
What exactly has been going on? The Minister needs to come clean on this. The Secretary of State did not include these prohibitions either in the previous Bill or in the current Bill, even though he was the Minister in charge of both Bills. What came over him when he briefly left the Government? What conditions was he made to accept when he agreed to come back and then to become Secretary of State? Does this whole episode not show that, in his heart of hearts, he probably agrees with us that the only way to safeguard our animal welfare and food safety standards and to prevent our hard-pressed British farmers from being undercut by cheap, sub-standard imports, is to put these provisions in the Bill?
We believe that new clause 1 is the crucial amendment. It would not just strengthen the Bill but safeguard its core aims. We make no apology whatever about pressing it to a vote. I urge the Minister to listen closely to the unanimity of voices on this amendment and to recognise the need for this addition to the Bill. I appreciate that this is a tough moment for Government Members. As they vote, they must be aware that the future of many of their constituents is on the line. I want to safeguard their future, our countryside and our food safety.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I rise to support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has said on new clause 1. I shall also speak to new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), with the support of many of his Conservative colleagues. At the moment, I am the only Labour Member whose name has been added to it, but I am sure that many others would join me on Report.
Some of us sat on the Committee that considered the first draft of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament. I was also on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as well as part of as various all-party parliamentary groups, and there were also debates on these matters in the Chamber and at oral questions. Ministers, including the then Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Farming Minister and, at various points, the International Trade Secretary, gave us verbal reassurances.
There was a bit of a trajectory, because in the early days, we could get Ministers to say only that UK standards would be protected. Eventually, after lots of prompting on our part, some of them—although certainly not on the International Trade side—said that that also applied to imported goods. The Minister needs to reflect on why it is very clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, that those assurances are not believed. The absolute fact of the situation is that everyone, from the NFU to environmental and consumer groups, wants those things enshrined in law, as do the Conservative Members who have signed the new clause.
The Minister has talked about including those assurances in a trade Bill, but when the Trade Bill was introduced to Parliament, we were fobbed off. We tried to get something in there, but were told that it applied only to current trade agreements and not to future ones, although some legal opinion said that it did. When we tried to discuss that during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and all the discussions about Brexit, we were told that it would pop up somewhere else. That game of musical chairs just does not wash with people. We want to see this measure in the Agriculture Bill because it specifically relates to food standards and animal welfare, as we have heard in detail.
I remember trying to bring the matter up during arguments about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, way before Brexit. The then Member for Streatham, who was our shadow Business Secretary, made great play about the NHS being at risk under TTIP. When I started trying to talk to him about chickens, he looked at me as if to say, “What on earth is she on about now?” Now, the chickens have come home to roost—metaphorical chickens—and everyone knows about the issue, but nobody is convinced that the Government are willing to support preventive measures.
We spoke earlier about articles in the Daily Mail and The Guardian. I will quote a Guardian article from 6 March—hon. Members are probably ready to sneer at it—which said:
“Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects. It retains a position of resisting more information on labels to limit consumer knowledge and engagement.”
The vested interests involved in the US food sector are absolutely immense, with huge lobbying efforts and huge amounts of disinformation and press work. The article continues:
“Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry, which leads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance on antibiotics”,
which we know is an issue.
“Whereas we have a ‘farm to fork’ approach to managing disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar wash.”
The article continues:
“In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient.”
That article was penned by the now Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, during the brief hiatus after he left the Government in February 2019. He immediately turned to The Guardian to make known his views on just how worried he was about US animal welfare.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Lady understand that the US actually consumes most of its own beef? Only about 13.5% of its beef is exported, mainly to Japan and the far east. There is not a great stockpile of American beef looking for a market, either in the UK or the EU.
Kerry McCarthy
I am not sure that that is particularly relevant. At the moment there is a ban on hormone-pumped beef entering our markets. The UK is the third biggest market in the world for food imports. It is clear that if the doors were open, there would be a potential market here and the US would be very keen to get into it. Most of the discussion on trade deals so far has not been about the beef sector anyway.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has already said, at about the time that the now Secretary of State wrote that article, he also tabled what are now new clauses 33, 34 and 35 to the then Agriculture Bill. Why would he do that? He had made the arguments in public. He did a sterling job trying to defend the Government’s position during the first sitting of the Agriculture Bill. He came across as reasonably sincere, but the moment he had the freedom to say what he really thought, he went to the press and wrote an article in The Guardian outlining clearly and eloquently what his concerns were. He did not seek verbal reassurances from the Government; he sought legislative reassurances. So if it is good enough for the Secretary of State when he is allowed free rein to say what he feels, I am sure the Minister can understand why many of her colleagues on the Conservative Back Benches and Opposition Members also agree with him.
Deidre Brock
I agree with much of what the previous speakers have said. New clauses 1 and 4 are grand in their way and I will support them, but we have to go further. I want to see the standards of the EU maintained, but perhaps that is for a different debate. However, it is possible to write it into domestic law that imports have to match the sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the WTO.
The WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures is clear that science has to underpin the standards to protect human, animal or plant health. The agreement allows states to protect their food supplies and the imports of supporting products to the benefit of citizens. I know the argument will be that Ministers seek to protect citizens, but we do not know that that will always be the case. We should seek to ensure that citizens have the confidence to believe in this measure and in future Governments, and in the commitment to protecting foods and health. Citizens should also have the right to understand how Governments intend to do that and should have the ability to challenge them if necessary.
The SPS agreement allows standards to be set, so we should have them set. That would have allowed Ministers to assure the public that animal welfare and plant health would be maintained, and that imported food would be of a standard that we could rely on for health and the protection of life. As NFU Scotland recently pointed out, assurances around priorities in negotiations work only if the US upholds its side of the bargain. It stated:
“After all, there’s no point having a level playing field if the two sides are playing to different rules.”
I therefore support new clause 7.
Thangam Debbonaire
I will make a few brief remarks on behalf of the shadow European affairs team. As we leave the European Union, we want to make sure we do not lose anything in terms of our high standards and that we try to spot the places where there is potential for loopholes, which I hope none of us wants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East admirably made the case that the Secretary of State’s real views are in alignment with ours. We therefore present the Government with an opportunity to vote for the Secretary of State’s actual views. We in the European affairs team feel we are here to make sure that the transference of Europe-wide rules to UK standards is not undermined by trade agreements with other parts of the world. We simply want to safeguard that. So, on behalf of the shadow European affairs team, I want to add my support to the case made by Opposition Front and Back Benchers, which, after all, reflects the Secretary of State’s views.
Victoria Prentis
I thank hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to talk once again about the importance of food standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East will never find me sneering at or questioning the importance of food standards. This is an important debate, and it is right that we have it here, and while considering other Bills, as we move to a new world where we have left the EU and hopefully have free trade agreements with many other countries.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to not lowering our standards as we negotiate new trade deals. The Prime Minister has consistently stated that we will not compromise our high environmental, food safety or animal welfare standards now that we have left the EU. We made that commitment in our manifesto, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade reaffirmed that commitment to the House earlier this week in respect of a US trade deal.
Victoria Prentis
I will give way, but I have a long speech and a lot to cover.
Kerry McCarthy
I am sure the Minister does, but the problem is that I suspect I know what she will say. To cut to the chase, given that it would make everybody so much happier if that commitment was in the Bill, what is the reason for its not being?
Victoria Prentis
I will set out the Government’s position on that. The hon. Member for Cambridge was kind enough to say that I was an esteemed lawyer. I do not know whether that is true, but I am certainly a very experienced Government lawyer, and I gently say that the purpose of primary legislation is not about making people happy, although the purpose of the policy behind it might well be that. We come at this from the same place: we all like high standards in British agriculture and want to support our farmers. However, I will set out why the Government have come to this conclusion, which will take some time, I am afraid, and I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East.
To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West, we are retaining existing UK legislation, and at the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to the UK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. That will ensure that our high standards, including import requirements, continue to apply.
The hon. Member for Cambridge said I was an esteemed lawyer—who knows?—and also that he was waiting for a letter from the Department. I am certainly an experienced enough lawyer not to wish to interfere in that process. If a letter is being drafted, I will make sure to look at it. However, he asked specifically about hormone-treated beef and washed chicken. I will give him the directives and the way they are transposed into British law as I see it. The top line is that all EU law on food safety standards was carried over by the 2018 Act.
EU Council directive 96/22/EC, as amended, which bans the import and production of hormone-treated beef, was transposed into UK law through national legislation. It is found in various regulations, including the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015; Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2019; and the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that, because I do not expect him to take a note of all those, or the Secretary of State will write to the shadow Secretary of State. I do not want to interfere in that letter-writing process.
On the washing of poultry, European Union controls on the surface decontamination of poultry—regulation 853 /2004—will be retained through the 2018 Act, and have been made ready to be carried over into UK law immediately after the transition period through the Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will maintain the status quo that no product other than drinking water is currently approved in the EU to decontaminate poultry carcases. That will remain the same in the UK. I will write to the hon. Gentleman properly about that, so that he has the details. It is complicated, as he says.
The regulations I have mentioned include artificial growth hormones for domestic production and imported products, and we would require legislation to change those regulations. Both hormone-treated beef and washing of poultry are covered. The Government have said that any future deals must respect our regulatory autonomy, which means that we will not sign agreements that threaten our ability to set our own high standards, of which we are proud. Our standards are driven by consumer and retailer demand and frequently go above current regulatory standards; most of us would welcome that. The Agriculture Bill will help to ensure that we continue to maintain those high standards in line with the needs of our farmers, retailers and consumers.
Thangam Debbonaire
Is the Minister not making my case that the WTO is therefore the lowest common denominator? It is a real problem that we have ended up heading in this direction.
Victoria Prentis
I feel that the hon. Lady was partly making my point: we have to stick to WTO rules. I think she and I agree that we want to comply with WTO rules. As a lawyer with many years’ experience, I am explaining my concern that the new clause would possibly not comply with WTO rules—I put it no more strongly than that.
Prior to the start of negotiations for each new free trade agreement, the Government will publish—indeed, we have done so this week—our approach to negotiations, including our negotiating objectives and other explanatory material. We did so on 27 February ahead of the start of negotiations with the EU, and on Monday this week for the US negotiations. Right hon. and hon. Members, and the general public, have a chance to scrutinise those documents and the Government will rightly be held to account. Once negotiations are under way, we will continue to keep the public and Parliament informed. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance of allowing Parliament and the public to scrutinise the trade policy, while maintaining the ability of Government to negotiate flexibly in the best interests of the UK.
I turn to new clause 30 and new schedule 1. As several hon. Members have said, the provisions were tabled when the previous Agriculture Bill was before the House during the last Session. The hon. Member for Cambridge will recognise that domestic legislation already provides for a prohibition on the use of substances listed in new clause 30, and for maximum residue limits for substances to be specified. My response to the comments about the new clauses that were tabled by the current Secretary of State is this: are we not fortunate to have a Secretary of State who is a champion of standards in our food and agricultural sector? Quite frankly, to turn around the words of the hon. Member for Bristol East, the Secretary of State wholly supports the Agriculture Bill as drafted. He has been reassured that this is not needed in primary legislation, and if it is good enough for the Secretary of State, it is good enough for me.
To go into detail, as the hon. Member for Cambridge did, new clause 30 does not refer to the operability amendments and other provisions in the exit legislation made last year—obviously, because it was drafted before that. That legislation deliberately took a flexible approach to the specification of maximum residue limits, rather than the more onerous scrutiny that the new clause would lead to. The legislation will come into force at the end of the transition period. Setting a maximum residue limit for a particular substance does not overturn the legislative prohibition on the use of substances as growth promoters.
Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, important. But, as was explained in debates on the exit statutory instruments last year, a non-legislative approach when setting maximum residue limits is more efficient and likely to avoid unnecessary delays, which might have financial implications for industry and make the UK less attractive to pharmaceutical companies looking to market veterinary medicines. If that were to lead to a reduction in available medication, it could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As such, although we recognise that there are arguments for increasing the level of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government prefer to maintain the approach set out in our exit legislation—of course, it was not around when the amendment was drafted—that was considered and approved by Parliament at the end of last year.
Turning to new clause 31, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge can agree that there are instances in which substances other than drinking water are already deemed appropriate for the specified purposes, having been subject to rigorous risk analysis processes. In fact, the EU has approved lactic acid for treating beef carcases, recycled hot water for carcases of certain species and clean water—not drinking water—for fishery products. I hope we can agree that it would be regressive to undo what are already considered safe practices. The unfortunate effect of the new clause would be to stymie any process for considering new substances for use in the UK in future. It could restrict the potential for innovation to realise new hygiene benefits.
The wording of new clause 31, whether intended or not, goes much further than existing restrictions—I do not want to talk about sloppy drafting, but I am concerned that such a provision could result in serious animal health and welfare implications. Live animals could no longer be effectively washed or treated with antiparasitic treatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, such as sheep dips. Udder washing is a perfectly normal practice to stop mastitis, and we would not want to interfere with that. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat remains a high priority for the Government, and the current regulatory framework ensures that.
New clause 32 would prevent meat and other products from conventionally reared meat chickens from being sold or supplied in the UK unless they are produced to a stocking density no greater than 39 kg per square metre, which is our current maximum in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has set a maximum stocking density of 42 kg per square metre. As such, the new clause would mean that meat chicken legally produced in Northern Ireland over 39 kg per square metre could not be sold in the UK. I am sure that was not the intention when the new clause was drafted.
Further, although we have a strong domestic sector producing around £2.4 billion of poultry meat per year, in 2018 we imported £2.1 billion of chicken meat and chicken products. Some of those, including imports from some EU member states, do not meet our stocking density requirements. Imposing a restriction of this kind on imports might result in food security issues, and it would certainly impact cost. We all want to move in the same direction on animal welfare, but we may not be able to do so by means of new clause 32.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to standards and to highlight Parliament’s role in scrutinising our negotiation approach to free trade agreements. However, as I mentioned, we have retained EU legislation for existing protections on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards, and I therefore the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.
Daniel Zeichner
I have listened very closely to the Minister addressing a range of complicated issues. In responding, I will work backwards.
We fully accept that drafting the detail in these proposals was a complicated process, and we pay tribute to the current Secretary of State for the work he did in attempting to deal with this conundrum. I have to say that I think the Bill—this is the part the Minister was not really able to address—in effect takes apart what the Secretary of State was trying to do, which we think was really important. I invite the Minister to reflect on whether it would be possible to work cross-party before we get to the next stage of the process to amend some of the detail. That would seem to me to be a good way forward, and it would reflect what I suspect we can probably all agree on. Knocking this down on the basis that there are problematic points of detail—I do not dispute that it is complicated and difficult—is not the right way to go.
That leads us to the Minister’s point about our relationships in the WTO. We know that the WTO is a troubled organisation at the moment, but we also know that there is plenty of opportunity all the time for people to challenge. The question is why they do it at some times and not others. That goes back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West.
There is a political set of questions about how trading blocs deal with disputes. The sad truth is that we are now outside one of the big trading blocs and we do not have the power of an umbrella that would probably prevent others from making challenges that we might not think reasonable. We have seen that in the new world order, with Trump and so on, quite spurious challenges may be made that generate a whole raft of legal procedures, which take time and are difficult to deal with. A small player is much more vulnerable than a big player to being picked off, because big players have more resources in their armoury to fight back with.
I am afraid that is the difficult situation that the Government have got us into. On the WTO rules, I recognise that there is some potential for challenge, but that is where we are at. We must ensure that we do everything we can to protect our people in this new world. The clearest and most helpful way of doing that in negotiations would be to put what we have proposed in the Bill; if we did so, the others in the negotiations would know it was non-negotiable.
That goes back to the basic point that the Minister made at the beginning of her speech. I am afraid the harsh truth is that when the Prime Minister makes a series of promises, they are not believed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made some excellent points: for all the reasons we have heard about today, including the piece that the current Secretary of State wrote all those months ago, how can we believe the Prime Minister when—
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2020 - (5 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following: Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof Chloramphenicol Chloroform Chlorpromazine Colchicine Dapsone Dimetridazole Metronizadole Nitrofurans (including furazolidone) Ronizadole Thyrostatic substances Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives Beta-agonists Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenic action.
New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day—
‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.
(3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, mean—
(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),
(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),
(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.
(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’.
New clause 7—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.’.
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.
New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certain animals and animal products: substances—
‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell or supply for human consumption any animal—
(a) which contains or to which there has been administered—
(i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
unless that substance was administered in accordance with subsection (4);
(b) that is an aquaculture animal to which—
(i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
has been administered;
(c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at a concentration exceeding the maximum residue limit; or
(d) to which a medicinal product has been administered if the withdrawal period for that product has not expired.
(2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal the sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1).
(3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale before the end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse to which has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist in accordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that the type and date of treatment was entered on the horse’s passport by the veterinary surgeon directly responsible for the treatment.
(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived wholly or partly from an animal to which has been administered a compliant veterinary medicinal product—
(a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative of these substances which readily yields the parent compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site of application, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action or gestagenic action, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) maximum residue limits for pharmacologically active substances, and
(b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes of prohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited substances].
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinary medicinal product if it complies with the requirements of Regulation 25 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015), and “withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015).
(8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’.
New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.
(2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.’.
New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of a chicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from a chicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house in which the chicken was reared—
(a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m2 of usable area, or
(b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area if the requirements of subsection (3) were met.
(3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper must—
(a) maintain and, on request, make available to the Secretary of State, documentation in the house giving a detailed description of the production systems, in particular information on technical details of the house and its equipment, including—
(i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of the surfaces occupied by the chickens;
(ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heating system (including their location), and a ventilation plan, detailing target air quality parameters (such as airflow, air speed and temperature);
(iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location);
(iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failure of any equipment essential for the health and well-being of the chickens;
(v) floor type and litter normally used; and
(vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilation and alarm systems;
(b) keep up to date the documentation referred to in subparagraph (a);
(c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilation and, if necessary, heating and cooling systems designed, constructed and operated in such a way that—
(i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed 20 parts per million and the concentration of carbon dioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million, when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads;
(ii) when the outside temperature measured in the shade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature does not exceed the outside temperature by more than 3°C; and
(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, the average relative humidity measured inside the house during a continuous period of 48 hours does not exceed 70%.
(4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in the United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that—
(a) documentation equivalent to that specified in subsection (3) was maintained by the keeper and was available for supply to the appropriate regulatory authority, and
(b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared were equivalent to, or better than, those set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean a conventionally reared meat chicken.’
New schedule 1—Prohibited substances—
1 Class I prohibited substances
2 Class II prohibited substances
3 Class III prohibited substances
4 Class IV prohibited substances
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Sir David, you will be glad to hear that earlier I was mid-sentence but close to my conclusion. All I was going to say was, when we come to conclude our discussion, the simple answer is to put it in the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The important point about new clauses 1, 4 and 7 is that they would allow us to set standards high to protect the food chain and therefore the consumer. The Minister might, and indeed I am sure she does, have a commitment to maintaining high standards, and she might even believe that her colleagues have a similar commitment. However, as we all know, Governments change—we are still within five years of David Cameron’s last election victory, after all—and the current Ministers will not always be in post. I would hate to think of the Minister, in the far-off days of her declining years, staring at a plate of questionable food in front of her, wishing that she had taken steps to guard against it when she could have done. We should take those steps to safeguard our food standards, protect our food producers and maintain the health of consumers, who are, after all, the people who send us here. The SNP therefore supports new clauses 1, 4 and 7.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Smallholdings estates: land management—
‘(1) A smallholdings authority which immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for the purposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdings estate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen months beginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submit to the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the future management of that estate for the purposes of—
(a) providing opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own account;
(b) providing education or experience in environmental land management practices;
(c) providing opportunities for increasing public access to the natural environment and understanding of sustainable farming;
(d) contributing to a mitigation of climate change, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
(e) providing support for innovative food production techniques (including techniques which do not involve management of land), and
(f) providing opportunities for innovation in sustainable land management practices.
(2) No land held by a smallholdings authority as a smallholding immediately before commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to be conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of otherwise than—
(a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection (1); and
(b) in accordance with proposals submitted under subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “smallholdings authority” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970.’.
This new clause would limit the disposal of smallholdings (“county farms”) by local authorities and would require local authorities to review their holding and submit proposals for future management to provide opportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation.
Kerry McCarthy
This revisits something that we discussed when the previous Agriculture Bill Committee met, but there have been some positive moves from the Government in respect of county farms since then. I am pleased that there have been quite a few indications of support, but we could do more, which is why I have tabled the new clause.
County farms are an undervalued national asset, and they could play a significant role in the future of UK farming. I have the support of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Sustain and the Landworkers Alliance for the new clause, which is aimed at rejuvenating the county farms project and improving the information that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs holds on the estate. It would require councils to submit a report to the Secretary of State within 18 months of this Act’s becoming law, saying how they would make best use of their smallholdings to support new entrants to farming. We have heard, and it is generally accepted, that the price of land in particular can act as a real deterrent to new entrants.
The new clause also looks at promoting sustainable land management practices, sharing knowledge of those practices, and increasing public access to the natural environment and farming. The new clause is needed because there has been a steep decline in the county farm estate over the past 40 years, and that sell-off appears to be continuing. Between 2010 and 2018, the size of England’s county farm estate fell by more than 15,000 acres, with 58% of that sold between 2016 and 2018. If we want to reverse that trend, it is clear that we need a fresh approach, rather than business as usual, and I hope that the new clause will kick-start that.
There was a session—I think it was of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, but I get confused sometimes, because we also discussed this at the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming—where Cambridgeshire County Council was spoken of. It does really good work on this front. Its estate generates a substantial income for the council of more than £4 million each year, and since 2009, the 109 new tenants who have joined the estate have an average age of 30, which is half the UK average.
We spoke earlier—I think it was when we were talking about de-linked payments and other things—about the average age of farmers in this country and how we really need to bring a new generation on board. County farms seem to be doing that in Cambridgeshire. The estate is also supporting a pioneering agroforestry farmer, Stephen Briggs.
At the very least, I hope the new clause will encourage councils to look favourably on including enhanced management and environmental obligations as part of the tender process and management. This is about not only allowing access to land through the county farm movement, but encouraging people to farm in a certain way. CPRE’s recent report on county farms highlighted the fact that a number of councils already view their estates as a crucial lever in responding to the climate emergency.
As I said at the beginning, we have had some promising words from the Government, but we have not had action yet, and the Bill is still completely silent on this. The now Secretary of State told us in the Agriculture Bill Committee back in October 2018 that he was considering whether to use funds under the productivity strand of the Bill to refresh the model. In January 2019, I chaired a session at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, interviewing the then Secretary of State on stage. It must be said that all the promises he made then went down very well.
One of those promises was to announce a new package of financial support for county farms in the coming months. He reaffirmed that promise in a letter to the EFRA Committee in March 2019, stating his desire to
“create a financial incentive for local authorities who want to invest in their council farms”.
In September, that promise was repeated, this time in response to a written question that I asked the current Secretary of State.
While I warmly welcome the statement in the “Future for Food, Farming and the Environment” policy statement published last week that the Department
“will offer funding to councils…who want to invest in creating new opportunities for new-entrant farmers”,
when can we expect some firm detail on the timetable of financial assistance that will be offered? In the meantime, based on the language in the policy statement, I see no reason that the new clause, which is designed to encourage new entrants and sustainable farming, would not help the Government to achieve their desired outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for tabling the new clause and look forward to working with her on how we can support smallholding authorities to invest in, and commit to, their county farms. We want to help them to provide more opportunities for new entrant farmers and to continue to offer the wider environmental and public benefits.
I am concerned that the new clauses would constrain smallholding authorities’ ability to manage their estates effectively and would create an additional administrative burden. Rather than legislating, I would prefer to work collaboratively with smallholding authorities. We want to support them to manage their estates so that they can provide more opportunities for new farmers and existing tenants, as well as for the benefit of the wider public.
I hope that the hon. Lady is assured by the document published last week and that she will continue to talk to me. We will continue to talk to smallholding authorities about how we can take things forward. I therefore ask her to withdraw the motion.
Daniel Zeichner
New clause 26 is broadly similar to new clause 5, which my hon. Friend has just moved. She spoke powerfully about the plight of our county farms. She did mention, of course, successes in Cambridgeshire. I rarely find reason to praise Cambridgeshire County Council, but on this occasion, I think that it is doing good work.
As farms owned by local authorities that can be let out at below-market rents—I suspect that there is agreement on this—they are a vital means to encourage young and first-time farmers into the sector. They provide a key way in for those who have not had the good fortune to inherit or are lacking the capital required to buy or rent. As well as offering a sustainable income stream for local authorities, these farms have been recognised as particularly well placed to deliver locally driven social and environmental goods, ranging from tree planting and local education initiatives on farming to public procurement of locally produced food.
As we have heard, however, county farms have been left in serious long-term decline. An investigation last year by Who Owns England? showed that the acreage has halved in the past 40 years—first driven by the privatisation drive and cuts to county budgets and powers under the Thatcher and Major Governments, and by the austerity agenda in recent times. Cash-strapped local authorities making difficult decisions have been forced to take cost-saving measures, and 7% of England’s county farms estate was sold off between 2010 and 2018, with three quarters of all smallholding authorities having sold parts of their estate.
As we have heard, some authorities, such as my own in Cambridgeshire, have recognised the importance of county farms and have increased the number of acres in the past decade. Interestingly, they are now bringing in a sustainable income for the authorities. I am told that, in Cambridgeshire’s case, that is in excess of £4 million each year. However, the situation is not so good elsewhere. I am told that Herefordshire, for instance, has sold many of its county farms; there has been a decline of 89%.
The Government’s recent policy document on farming for the future mentions that funding will be offered to councils with county farm estates, but we still have no clear detail on how much that would be and whether it would be sufficient. It is rather surprising that in a flagship Bill on reforming our agricultural system—
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Are there any examples of where local authorities have sold the farms but to the tenants so that they can become owner-occupiers—a sort of right-to-buy scheme —or are the farms being sold off outside the sphere of those tenants?
Daniel Zeichner
I do not know the answer, but I am happy to go away and look for it, because that sounds like an interesting idea.
Let me explain what our worry is. We are here discussing major, flagship legislation for the future of the sector, and to us it would seem sensible to ensure that there was provision for this very important part of the sector, particularly when there was such an opportunity, through the local authorities, to deliver a range of public goods, including land management practices that mitigate climate change; public access; and even the promotion of innovative food production systems, such as vertical farms or city farms. If local authorities were to build into their management practices for their smallholdings the aims of aiding nature recovery and carbon sequestration and of promoting biodiversity, county farms could be a very useful tool for local communities, particularly in areas such as mine, where we have such interest in environmental issues being promoted.
It is important that we stop the loss and refresh the purpose of our county farms. I am not sure that that makes it easier for local authorities, because they are making difficult decisions, but it would make it harder for them to make that particular decision.
Mr Goodwill
What does the hon. Gentleman think about the example of Staffordshire County Council? When selling off farms, the council has given tenants the first opportunity to buy, but if that has not happened it has sold the farms with sitting tenants. The tenants continue their tenancies, but the council can use the money to spend on other priorities, such as schools, getting homeless people into housing and all the other local authority priorities.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate what the right hon. Member says. We are not seeking to stop that kind of process. We are trying to make it more difficult for councils to respond to funding cuts by selling county farms, which in some ways I do not criticise because they face difficult choices. If that practice is not stopped, then, frankly, it will go on happening, unless there are significant changes in funding for local authorities.
In recognition of the key role that local authorities can play in incentivising these farms to be environmental public goods, we would also require local authorities to submit proposals on how they intended to manage their smallholdings in a way that contributed to those various public goods, including the mitigation of climate change and reducing gas emissions. As discussed, our new clause would also limit the continued disposal of farms by stipulating that no local authority smallholding would need to have its ownership transferred unless that was clearly in accordance with those purposes.
Victoria Prentis
I have already responded fairly fully to the hon. Member for Bristol East and I feel that the Labour Front-Bench amendment is strikingly similar. I have said all I need to say on this subject.
Kerry McCarthy
I hope we can continue the dialogue about county farms and that we can see some concrete action from the Government. Given what the Minister has said, for once I will take her at her word that she has leapt upon this and I will not push the measure to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs
“(1) Subsection (2) applies to any function of the Secretary of State under—
(a) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (“the EU Regulation”),
(b) the delegated and implementing Regulations,
(c) any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the EU Regulation, and
(d) any regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 relating to the enforcement of the EU Regulation or the delegated and implementing Regulations.
(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the function only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
(3) In subsection (1), the “delegated and implementing Regulations” means—
(a) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to the establishment of Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules,
(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to conditions of use of the quality term “mountain product”, and
(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 laying down rules for the application of the EU Regulation.
(4) The references in subsection (1) to the EU Regulation and the delegated and implementing Regulations are to those instruments—
(a) as they have effect in domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and
(b) as amended from time to time whether by virtue of that Act or otherwise.”—(Deidre Brock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about protected geographical indictors. They are a vital part of the business plan of many of Scotland’s top food producers and many food producers in other nations. They are a guarantee of quality and of the care and skill that goes into their production.
I am sorry to say that I remain to be convinced that a UK system would be any kind of replacement or match for the EU system, but the UK Government still intend to create their own new system instead of sticking with the EU system, as I understand they could have done. It therefore seems sensible to me to make sure that the new scheme properly serves producers who have the full protection under the current scheme, and any new producers wishing to get geared up for it.
To protect Scottish producers, it seems sensible to ensure that there is input from the Scottish Government to the new scheme. The new clause would simply ensure that the views of Scottish Ministers are properly considered in the exercise of functions under the scheme. It reflects and respects the devolution settlement and is measured.
Victoria Prentis
I see the good intentions behind the new clause, and I understand the desire to ensure that Ministers’ decisions on geographical indicators are made in the best interests of all stakeholders across the nations. However, that is not quite what the new clause would do. It would give Scottish Ministers a veto over Government decisions, even when there was no Scottish interest in those decisions. GIs are a form of intellectual property law and are therefore a reserved matter, so it would not be appropriate to go down the path proposed in the new clause.
Nevertheless, even though GIs are reserved, the Government recognise that the devolved Administrations have always played an important role in these schemes—Scottish salmon, for example, is an important export—and I am keen for that to continue. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that my officials have worked closely with colleagues from the devolved Administrations to agree a working-level arrangement to underpin very close co-operation in the new domestic schemes. That was agreed and signed by senior officials in the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, on 4 October last year. The arrangement ensures that the devolved Administrations will be included in the assessment of GI applications and will have a say in the development of scheme rules. I believe that this arrangement does what the hon. Lady seeks with her new clause.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to say on behalf of the shadow European affairs team—in the spirit of transitioning from one state of affairs to another—that Labour Front-Benchers have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the SNP are trying to do. Of course, we want to protect GIs and people’s ability to trade using them, which is a strength. We particularly want to make sure that, given that—I have to reiterate this—the prediction that moving to World Trade Organisation trading rules will be the worst-case scenario, we do everything we can to protect our specialist food producers. However, the Labour party cannot support the new clause as worded because of subsection (2), which would give Scottish Ministers a veto. I will not go over old ground, but it is consistent with Labour policy that we could not support it because of that part, but we support the spirit of what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve.
I urge the Minister to work with all parties and producers across the whole United Kingdom so that we can protect our GI products. They are dear to us and to our sense of who we are, and as we leave the European Union, they may matter even more. There are Members across the Committee who feel very strongly about GIs in their own constituencies.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Work is ongoing on this exact issue. I encourage Labour Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods, at which we will discuss this, so that we can hold the Minister to account.
Thangam Debbonaire
What a wonderful invitation. I was mentally running through Government Committee members and trying to think of a geographical indicator in the constituency of each one, and I think I did pretty well, actually. Probably all of us have a product in our constituencies whose GI status we want to protect, so the hon. Lady’s offer is useful.
In that spirit, as I said, we support the sentiment behind the new clause. We cannot support subsection (2), but in every other way we support making this law, because we need to do everything we can to protect our GIs. I am sorry if that disappoints the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but that is where we are at the moment.
Deidre Brock
I appreciate the words of the hon. Member for Bristol West. There is that veto word again. I think it is more a matter of respect for the devolved Administrations and their knowledge of the conditions that apply in their areas, rather than seeking to override their views of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers, as the Bill potentially allows for.
Leaving that aside for the moment, I stress how incredibly important protected geographical indicators are in Scotland and to those producers and areas fortunate enough to have been awarded membership of the scheme. There are many questions outstanding about the replacement scheme. There are fears that it will be in no way strong enough to stand up to the US tendency to prefer a trademark system, which is a lot weaker than the European PGI scheme. Previously, a producer who came across a good that made use of their brand inappropriately had the whole of the EU standing behind them when they took action against the offender. We are not entirely sure what we will have instead.
This is something I feel very strongly about. I have done quite a lot of work on PGIs. We have taken a lot of evidence about them in the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I know how important they are, particularly particular to some of the further flung areas of Scotland. I hate to use the word fragile when talking about rural areas because I know how it sometimes offends people who live up there, but there is no doubt that PGI status is crucial to maintaining people’s ability to stay in some of those areas, to work there and to keep the countryside alive with people. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would ban the import of foie gras in the UK. As I am sure many here will be aware, foie gras is a product made from the livers of ducks or geese that have been repeatedly force-fed, by having a metal tube inserted down their throats several times a day, when they are just 12 weeks old. It is effectively produced by rendering the animal diseased.
While the production of this so-called delicacy has been banned in Britain since 2000, the fact that imports to the UK are allowed is an effective green light to the continued suffering and mistreatment of these animals. Shockingly, the UK imports around 200 tonnes of foie gras each year from mainland Europe. Today we have an opportunity to put a stop to that once and for all.
Some members of this Bill Committee may recall that the Labour DEFRA team tabled an amendment banning foie gras imports during the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill in 2018. It was extremely disappointing and embarrassing that the then Government chose not to accept that reasonable and common-sense amendment. I sincerely hope that they will not choose to repeat the mistake today in voting against new clause 10.
We know that the Secretary of State has spoken favourably of a ban. He is on record saying:
“When we leave the European Union, we do indeed have an opportunity to look at restrictions on sales”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 1052.]
That opportunity is today, and the time is now.
Deidre Brock
I support the new clause simply because it is the right thing to do. I appreciated the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham East very much, and I hope the Minister will see her way clear to coming to some sort of agreement on this, because many of us are very disturbed by this trade and would like to see it stopped.
Victoria Prentis
While allowed under EU law, the Government have made clear that the production of foie gras from ducks or geese using force-feeding raises serious welfare concerns, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East outlined. The production of foie gras by force-feeding is banned in the UK, as it is incompatible with our domestic legislation. After the transition period, there will be an opportunity to consider whether the UK can adopt a different approach to foie gras imports and sales in this country. I am afraid the time is not quite now; the time is after the transition period.
I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, but this Bill is not about making provisions prohibiting imports. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will use the opportunities provided through future free trade agreements and, of course, our wider international engagements to promote high animal welfare standards among our international trading partners. I am afraid the time is not yet, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Nadia Whittome
I must say I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. What she says on animal welfare is at odds with what is in the Bill. Therefore, I will move this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to continue under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am pleased to speak briefly to the new clause, which is about standards, animal welfare and what is right. It is about who we are and what we eat, although I am mindful of my hon. Friends from Bristol, so the last part applies only to some of us.
Sir David, we know that many people in Southend West, Newport West and right across the United Kingdom are concerned that Britain’s departure from the European Union could lead to laws on the quality of meat standards being relaxed to the point of impotency, purely so that a deal can be struck between the Prime Minister and the United States Government. Many Opposition Members have loudly made the case that we cannot sell out or trade off our high standards and practice, and many on the Government Benches make those points in private too. This morning, the Secretary of State for International Trade made a strong comment in response to my question in the House. She said that the Government would walk away from any US-UK deal that did not protect our high standards. Obviously, we will watch that very closely.
I commend Unison for commissioning a recent survey that looked at the wider issues of meat standards. It is important for representative bodies such as Unison to take the lead in highlighting those issues. In Labour’s 2019 manifesto, we pledged to introduce a formal whistleblowing procedure through the Food Standards Agency, to enable employees to report bad behaviour and practice in abattoirs. The new clause would make good on that pledge, but more importantly ensure that malpractice and impropriety had no place in abattoirs across the country. The new clause is sensible, and essentially self-explanatory. Surely the Government will have little issue accepting it, and I call on them to do so.
Victoria Prentis
Whistleblowing is already protected in legislation in Great Britain through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and the Food Standards Agency already has robust procedures in place to process whistleblowing in relation to animal welfare offences committed in abattoirs. The Act provides procedures to support staff and workers to raise concerns regarding possible past, current or future wrongdoing during the course of their work. That includes abattoir workers who are concerned that animal welfare offences might have been committed by their employer. That legislation and the FSA procedures provide a clear framework to handle whistleblowing and encourage disclosure—not just within abattoirs, but across the scope of work carried out by the FSA.
Following the 2013 review into the integrity and insurance of food networks, the National Food Crime Unit was established in 2015, which allows anyone to report any suspected food crime by calling Food Crime Confidential on a dedicated number. That crime unit is strengthening its capabilities and will be opening a fully functioning in-house criminal investigations unit by April 2020. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West will agree that this is progress, so I ask her to withdraw her proposal.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments and her affirmation of what is already going on. However, if this is already in law, it could do no harm to enshrine and reaffirm it in the Bill, so we will not withdraw the new clause; we will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Livestock farming practices: duty to promote research—
“The Secretary of State must promote the conduct of research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote the conduct of research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England.
Daniel Zeichner
These two new clauses would require the Secretary of State to conduct or commission research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England. We know that effective research into the impact of highly intensive farming practices is going to be vital to contributing to a better understanding of what we can do to improve animal welfare and what better welfare practices can be promoted within the public goods element of the Bill, which we will of course support.
As I outlined during the debate on some previous amendments regarding the need for baseline animal welfare standards, we think much more could be done to improve the lives of animals on our farms, looking particularly at species-specific needs. We think research has a big role to play in that, but unless that research is properly co-ordinated and incentivised by the Government, we will be leaving it largely up to market forces to keep the science up to date. We believe the welfare of our farm animals is too important to be neglected, and we want to see action now. I appreciate that there is a question whether such a provision would be covered by the Bill’s money resolution, so we have helpfully provided two versions. I very much hope that the Government might find it in their heart to support one of them.
Victoria Prentis
The Government are committed to animal welfare. I reassure Members that high-quality research and evidence from a range of sources will always inform our animal welfare policy. Using the powers set out in the Bill, we are developing a scheme, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that aims to improve farm animal welfare in England. As part of that, we are exploring one-off grants that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, as well as a payment by results scheme through which farmers could receive ongoing payments for delivering specific animal welfare enhancements.
New clause 13 would make it a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research that specifically considers the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England. Although the new clause is well intentioned, it fails to recognise the unintentional consequences that could occur as a result. Farm animal welfare relies primarily on good stockmanship. The Animal Welfare Committee frequently concludes that good stockmanship is more important than the system in which animals are kept when it comes to meeting their welfare needs. In addition, it is difficult to be clear about what constitutes a highly intensive farming system, because the term is not defined.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already conducts internal and external research into farm animal welfare, and is supported by a range of evidence committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee. Although new clause 14 does not state what is meant by “promote” and is ambiguous on what would fulfil that requirement, I reassure Members that DEFRA already promotes animal welfare research in a number of ways. However, we do not wish to be restricted to focusing only on intensive farming systems, however defined. DEFRA publishes details of current research and development online, as well as the final reports from internal and external research projects.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare, and recognise the need for animal welfare policy development and implementation to be very well founded in evidence. That will ensure that we remain at the global forefront of animal welfare policy. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the motion.
Daniel Zeichner
I anticipated the question on the definition of highly intensive farming when I reread the new clause over lunchtime. I rather thought that it would be the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby who raised that query, but the Minister got in there first. I am pleased by her response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Grouse shooting and management: review and consultation
“(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) commission an independent review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting, and
(b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management.
(2) The Secretary of State must make available the services of any person or other resources to assist in the conduct of a review under subsection (1)(a).
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).
(4) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which—
(a) the review commissioned under subsection (1)(a) is received, or
(b) the consultation under subsection (2) closes,
whichever is the sooner, publish a statement of future policy on grouse shooting and grouse moor management.”—(Ruth Jones.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 16—Grouse shooting and management: review and consultation (No. 2)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) undertake a review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting, and
(b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).
(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which the consultation under subsection (2) closes, publish a statement of future policy on grouse shooting and grouse moor management.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation.
Ruth Jones
I am pleased to speak to new clauses 15 and 16. We know that our planet and climate are experiencing huge change, and the effects of the climate emergency are becoming an increasing feature of the world in which we live, affecting not just humans, but our natural world and our wildlife. The new clauses call on the Government to think about biodiversity, the uplands, the fragile and insecure rural economy, and the many people who live and make their way of life in our green and open spaces. The new clauses are also about the welfare of our wildlife. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has campaigned on such issues over many years, and I pay tribute to her tenacity and commitment to animal welfare and our environment.
The weight of the scientific evidence before us is such that we can see that driven grouse shooting damages habitats, pollutes our water, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and involves the illegal persecution of birds of prey. The practice also increases the risk of floods, which damage properties and green spaces and lead to devastating deaths of people and animals alike. Right now, flooding is an issue of real concern for many people up and down the country. Those of us who were present for yesterday’s Opposition day debate on flooding heard powerful stories illustrating the need for upstream land management to prevent downstream flooding. As shadow flooding Minister, I was delighted that the Opposition motion received support from both sides of the House, including the Government Benches. By voting with us, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) showed that, sometimes, politics does not need to win but common sense can.
The new clause addresses the effects of a practice that cuts across many different and important issues, and the Minister can surely support it. It would allow us to look at specific areas such our soil, drainage and hydrology, conservation, wildlife crime, and the wider concern about sustainability. As legislation such as this Bill passes through the House, we have the chance to address the many issues that have fallen off the to-do list. Let us take the opportunity new clauses 15 and 16 offer to commission a review so that we can methodically, clearly and carefully work our way through those important issues. The future of our planet and our natural world is in our hands, so let us get on and save it.
Mr Goodwill
My North Yorkshire constituency includes about two thirds of the North York Moors national park and vast areas of heather moorland, which is a glory to behold in late summer when the heather is in flower. Indeed, many people flock to the area to see the natural beauty of the landscape and to enjoy all the activities that take place there.
A grouse moor is a fragile environment. Historically, much of the area was forest. It was only when the trees were cut down for domestic fuel or to turn into charcoal to smelt with the limestone that was mined in the area that the forest disappeared. If we do not look after the heather in the right way, we will not keep it for very long. It needs managing not only for grouse, which cannot be reared artificially—it is an indigenous species in this country and needs to be reared in the wild—but for other species, particularly ground-nesting birds such as golden plover and lapwing, which rely on that fragile environment.
I join hon. Members who condemn the illegal persecution of raptors, but it is the case that by managing the moorland, the small mammals, birds’ eggs and other prey that the raptors feed on are facilitated. When we consider how to maintain those areas, it is important to listen to the experts. In an article, the North York Moors national park ranger David Smith said:
“Controlled burning is used to manage the heather better. After 15 to 20 years the heather gets old and leggy and you need different age structures for the wildlife that lives on the moor.
Grouse shelter underneath the older heather and the fresh new heather is more palatable for both sheep and grouse. What people don’t realise is that the North York Moors is a managed moorland. If you don’t stay on top of it, it would turn back to woodland, with birch and rowan trees quickly re-establishing themselves.”
The article continues:
“Cutting the heather, the alternative to burning, does work, but on very stony ground or uneven ground…it’s impractical”.
David Smith says:
“If you only cut the heather, you leave smaller vegetation close to the ground, it doesn’t destroy everything which is needed to give the new growth a fresh start.
Controlled burns flash across the top of the moor. They don’t destroy the seed bank. If you cut the heather, brash is left behind and smothers what’s underneath. It stops it from regenerating and slows down regrowth.”
The article concludes:
“Another reason for controlling the heather is to allow the sheep to move about more easily”
and to provide tender young growth for the sheep, particularly the young lambs, to graze.
We have obligations regarding CO2 and we need to protect our peat areas, but the deposition of new peat is glacial in pace. If we want to use those areas as a carbon sink, we should follow the advice of George Monbiot and plant more trees. Perhaps we should plant more trees, but not at the expense of our traditional moorland. We should also make a distinction between blanket bog, such as the bog on Saddleworth moor, which tends to occur in the west of the country, and the dry heathland found in other parts of the country, particularly in the east. We saw on the news the apocalyptic scenes on Saddleworth moor when it was on fire in February 2019. During the recent fires in Australia, much criticism was made of the absence of what they called back burning. I maintain that the controlled burning of small areas of the moorland, at a time of year when those fires are unlikely to get out of control, means that we have natural fire breaks. I suggest that the new clause is not needed.
I suggest that there are those in this country who oppose grouse shooting for reasons that are not particularly environmental, but are to do with animal welfare or with the people who go shooting, whom they may not like. We should not use a false environmental argument to stop the traditional management of the moorland. My wife’s grandfather managed a moor at Troutsdale until he retired. That moor is not a moorland now; there are no grouse, there are no lapwings; it is brash and trees are growing rapidly. If it is not kept on top of and managed, that type of habitat, which is unique in Europe, is not preserved. We need to protect it.
Victoria Prentis
It is a genuine pleasure and honour to be surrounded by so many knowledgeable and committed environmentalists. The Government consider that shooting activities can bring many benefits to the rural economy, and in many cases are beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected. We will continue to work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. There is no need for a commitment to review driven grouse shooting, as defined in the new clause, because we are already considering these issues. If there were to be a review, it might be more efficient and effective to consider other forms of grouse shooting and wider moorland management where there are no grouse, alongside driven grouse shooting.
The Government are already addressing rotational burning associated with grouse moor management on protected blanket bog. We have always been clear of the need to end burning on protected blanket bog to conserve vulnerable habitats, and we are actively looking at how legislation could achieve that. Our intention has always been to legislate if a voluntary approach fails to deliver. Real progress is being made in promoting sustainable alternatives, including consent for cutting of vegetation as an alternative to rotational burning, and removing or modifying consents to burn as higher level stewardship agreements are renewed. We have urged landowners to adopt those measures and continue to work with them constructively.
The recently released Werritty review addresses those issues in Scotland. The group’s report recognised the socioeconomic contribution that grouse shooting makes to Scotland’s rural economy, but made a number of recommendations that are currently being considered by the Scottish Government. We will watch closely to see how they respond. We do not rule out the possibility of a wider review into grouse moor management in the future, but I would not want to restrict that just to driven grouse management. Once Scotland has announced its plans, we will consider the benefits or otherwise of regulatory alignment between the two jurisdictions. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clauses.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister and the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for their comments. I bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area; I accept his comments and I am pleased that he agrees with us at least in part.
The burning of heather is an emotive issue, and there are many different expert opinions on it. It is certain that careful land management is crucial to ensure that we achieve our environmental standards. That is why we tabled our new clauses. We all agree that tree planting is essential; the Government are already missing their own targets by at least 70%, so we must keep pushing.
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments that this is a false animal welfare issue—it is not. It is a very real issue, which is why we have tabled the new clauses, following advice from outside organisations. I am pleased that the Minister is considering driven grouse shooting legislation, but let us start now and put it in the Bill.
Question put, that the clause be read a Second time.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Briefly, what new clause 17 boils down to is ensuring that Scottish farmers can plan ahead. It would ensure that the resources that will be made available to support Scottish farmers are known about in advance of the implementation period completion day. To be honest, I am not sure that a month is long enough notice, but it would at least be notice.
I am sure that the Minister could give that commitment today, but I think we would all agree that it would be much better written into the Bill. The Minister can think of the new clause as a sort of love letter to Scottish farmers, Parliament can think of things being done in the right way, and I would just be glad to have it confirmed.
Farmers, just like any other business, do best when they have some clarity on their long-term planning—we have heard the Secretary of State say that on several occasions. Providing that certainty and clarity—that honesty and transparency—is the work of the Government in this instance, and that is what new clause 17 asks for. Scottish farmers need that certainty and therefore the Scottish Government need certainty on funding. I would prefer farmers, crofters and Ministers to be told earlier whether funds will be made available that are at least equivalent to the cash that has been available to farmers and crofters up to now, but I look forward to the Minister telling us that the Government agree that farmers and crofters need that certainty and that they accept the new clause.
Thangam Debbonaire
We on the Labour Front Bench would say that the new clause makes a reasonable request. There are lots of ways in which we could try to deal with the problem of divergence and the tension between devolved and reserved matters and protecting regional interests, which we wish to do. There are various alternatives that the Minister could commit to. Having something from her on the record today, in Hansard, will be helpful.
Regardless of whether the new clause is agreed to, I am sure that all of us on the Opposition Benches will hold the Minister to her word; she is a woman of her word. If she makes a commitment on the record that there will be some form of report, we will put it in our diaries to follow that up. If the new clause falls, but she has made that commitment, we will be coming back to this point a month before the implementation period is over, at the beginning of December. I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister will consider making the commitment and therefore, when the time comes, the relevant statement can take place. It is completely reasonable that farmers across the whole of the regions and nations—not just Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom—can have that continuity and some certainty at least.
I may be wrong, but I am guessing that the Minister might be about to say that it is not necessary to add the new clause to the Bill. We have heard that before, and I understand the argument, but it would be good to have some recognition on the record that we can hold her to.
Victoria Prentis
In my experience, farmers would much prefer a cheque to a love letter. Maybe I have met the wrong ones. In that spirit, the only commitment I am going to make is the important one, which is a commitment to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament, giving real certainty over funding for the coming years. That is worth a great deal more to farmers than a new clause that would merely require the Secretary of State to make a statement on agricultural funding for Scotland.
I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that in recognition of the perceived injustice felt by Scottish farmers over convergence funding, the Scottish Government will receive an extra £160 million over two years in 2019-20 and 2020-21. All Members will know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is ultimately responsible for financial matters across UK Government. Treasury colleagues lead on discussions on all funding matters with Finance Ministers in the devolved Administrations. DEFRA will continue to work closely with the Treasury and the devolved Administrations on funding arrangements, but the Government have committed to year-on-year funding, and I am afraid that is the best I can do.
Deidre Brock
I cannot say that I am not disappointed by the Minister’s response. Yes, the convergence funding was welcome, but that was after many years of tussling over it, as Members will be aware. In our view, that money was returned to us after it was wrongfully taken away by the UK Government. We are delighted we have it now, as are the many farmers and crofters who will benefit from it, after it not being with them for some years.
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity over this, but I want to hear that the funds made available will be at least equivalent to the cash. That includes such things as inflation, and I do not feel that her words are sufficient to provide that surety. Forgive me, Sir David, but—this is a commonly held view in this place—I do not have a great deal of faith in the Treasury and what it will decide in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West for her kind words of support, because this important principle applies not solely to Scotland, but to all the devolved Administrations. She is right about that. That surety is vital for all our farmers and crofters, and even being able to put that into words in Committee would have been a helpful start. With that in mind, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I preface my comments by declaring that I am a member of Unite, the trade union that represents many agricultural and rural workers. Given that the Bill is on agriculture, and we have been speaking about it for many hours, it is disappointing that we have got so far without talking about the people who work in the industry. In 2017, 474,000 people were working in agriculture across the UK, so the Bill will affect almost half a million people. It is disappointing that we have had so little mention of workers so far, and no consideration of the current challenging conditions that many of them face, or of what impact the new provisions may have on employment conditions—let alone how we will ensure that we have the workforce to keep our farms running.
Our discussion so far has been in marked contrast to the excellent report last year by the Food Farming and Countryside Commission of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. That report is elegantly and beautifully produced, and many of the top-line quotes are about the impact on rural workers.
Many of those working in the sector face particularly challenging mental health issues. I suspect that the Government will say that the Bill is about agriculture, but in my view it must also be about the people who work and live in our countryside. We need an impact assessment for the Bill’s provisions to help to ensure that new policies affecting workers will result in making working in farming an attractive prospect for workers of all skill levels, from here and from overseas.
That is vital economically, because currently just 0.6% of those who harvest the UK’s crops are British. Owing to the toxic atmosphere and uncertainty around Brexit, our farmers are already seeing a significant shortage of workers from overseas. Last autumn, we saw fruit crops rotting in fields due to farmers not having enough people to pick them. We know that the Government’s seasonal workers pilot, limiting farmers to hiring up to 10,000 workers this year, will not provide the labour needed, even if it is increased a little.
Our farms require around 80,000 seasonal agricultural workers every year. According to the Office for National Statistics, 99% of those workers come from countries within the EU. The Government have spent a long time working out the detail of an Agriculture Bill that may become rather academic if we do not have the labour to work on our farms. We need to look seriously at employment rights and conditions, because the agricultural sector presents some particular challenges for workers. Many jobs in farming are physically hard, seasonal, low paid and precarious, with too few of the employment benefits that people working in other sectors take for granted.
The national minimum wage simply does not cover the specific and unique conditions associated with land-based workers, who are often in isolated rural situations, face significant mental health challenges, and need specific issues covered such as accommodation, living standards, sick pay, and even extra tools. Agricultural workers are also among the most vulnerable to being paid below the minimum wage, as so many workers are from abroad. If their English skills are not particularly strong or they are unfamiliar with the law, they are unlikely to bring claims against employers about underpayment. Yet in England, agricultural workers now lack any efficient and effective collective sector bargaining body to improve those conditions.
The agricultural wages board that the Labour Government introduced in 1948 was scrapped by the coalition Government in 2013. I remember those campaigns very well. I was often there on the marches, and the warnings that the trade unions and others made about the consequences have been largely borne out. That act of coalition vandalism—the Liberal Democrats were entirely complicit; my recollection is that the measures were actually driven through by a Liberal Democrat Minister—broke a career structure with six clear pay grades linked to skills, qualifications and experience, and ended a history of pay and protections with statutory underpinning.
Those protections covered the many thousands of workers on which the industry has depended. Indeed, DEFRA’s 2012 impact assessment of the abolition of the AWB identified that workers would lose more than £140 million in wages, £97.8 million in annual leave, and £8.7 million in sick pay. Predictably enough, surveys show that since the abolition of the wages board there has been a reduction in pay awards and increased working hours. Workers have seen worsening terms and conditions, including the absence of sick pay.
The fact is that England is now the only country in the UK without an effective collective bargaining body for our agricultural workers to have a voice over their pay and working conditions. Wales has an agricultural advisory panel, and both Northern Ireland and Scotland have agricultural wages boards, although their functions are relatively limited and focus on rates of pay. We believe that this cannot be right, and it is disappointing that a Bill on our agricultural sector does not even propose to look into this. I am afraid it speaks volumes about Conservative attitudes to workers in general.
Victoria Prentis
It is a key priority of the Government to ensure not only a successful and effective agricultural sector, but one in which workers are treated fairly. In recent years there has been enormous change to wider employment legislation, which protects and benefits workers in all sectors of the economy. Given that the national minimum wage has started and the new national living wage has been introduced, we continue to believe that there is no justification to have a separate employment regime for agricultural workers.
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, working with partner organisations, already investigates serious cases of labour market exploitation across the whole of England and Wales. We remain absolutely committed to monitoring the impacts of the Agriculture Bill across relevant sectors, including on workers. That will be achieved through a mixture of Government and third-party evaluation. We therefore believe that new clause 19 is unnecessary.
Daniel Zeichner
I have to say, I am very disappointed by that reply. It is complacent about what is going on in the countryside, and it does not address the very real issues that employers will face if we are unable to attract more people to the industry. It is to everybody’s benefit that agriculture becomes a higher-paid, higher-skilled industry. One of the ways we do that is by ensuring that people have proper rights and the confidence to look after not only themselves, but their colleagues.
I am also disappointed that we have not found any provision in the Bill to tackle the mental health crisis in the agricultural sector. People are working on their own or under pressure, and it is a real issue. We could have addressed it through new clause 19, and I can assure the Minister that we will come back to this in the future. I wish to push new clause 19 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Picture this: it is a lovely sunny day and everyone is outside. Kids are playing in the park, with their mums and dads looking on. What we do not often think about when we picture these happy scenarios, because we do not look for them, are herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. They may well be blowing in on spores and from nearby crops or, more directly, kids may be playing on grass in a park that has been treated with pesticides or weed-killing chemicals.
Quite rightly, we are now being told every day because of coronavirus that we need to wash our hands and not touch our mouths, eyes or nose. In more usual times, we are perhaps a bit more slack about possible transference of dangerous substances into our bodies—and these substances can be dangerous. A selection of the labels on pesticide products used in the UK contains warnings such as “Very toxic by inhalation”, “Do not breathe spray/fumes/vapour”, “Risk of serious damage to eyes”, “Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation”, “May cause cancer by inhalation”, and even “May be fatal if inhaled.” Cornell University’s work on pesticides points to the risk of deformities, mutations, cancer and poisoning of the nervous system. These are dangerous chemicals, and we need to keep a close eye on their impact.
Children and pregnant mothers are more exposed to the potential impact of pesticides than most of us, because they have a higher exposure rate. Children absorb pesticides more easily through their skin: not only is a child’s skin more permeable than an adult’s, but their skin surface area is higher relative to their body weight. That makes it easier for them to absorb higher rates of pesticides; in fact, infants will absorb around three times more pesticides than adults from similar exposure episodes. Children take in more air, water and food than adults relative to their body weight, which also increases their exposure. As an example, the breathing rate of a child in its first 12 years is roughly double that of an adult, and as a result the amount of airborne contaminants reaching the surface of the lung can be much higher.
Not only is exposure likely to be higher, but that child’s ability to cope with pesticide poisoning will differ from that of an adult. The systems in our bodies used to deal with toxins are less well developed in children, which can make them less able to cope with such substances than adults. As they grow, children’s brains and bodies undergo complex changes that affect tissue growth and organ development. Incidents of exposure that would be tolerated by adults can cause irreversible damage to unborn babies, infants and adolescents. What is worrying about this Bill is that not only does it completely omit any requirement for the protection of human health and the environment from pesticides, but it does not make a single recommendation for simply monitoring pesticides or their effects.
Mr Goodwill
One of the ways in which farmers can reduce their reliance on pesticides is by using new varieties derived though gene editing. Potatoes can be engineered to be resistant to blight, for example. Do Labour Front Benchers support that innovative technology that will reduce our reliance on pesticides?
Daniel Zeichner
Aha! As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has touched on a subject that is of some interest to me, as I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences. I look forward to having a detailed conversation with him about CRISPR-Cas9 and other exciting techniques.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we are absolutely interested in looking at ways in which we can reduce pesticide use. As I indicated earlier, I am well aware that farmers do not use pesticides without due caution, or without bearing in mind the current safety regulations and the costs involved. Having said that, we believe there should be additional measures in this Bill. We fully accept that pesticides are needed in some situations, but other new technologies might be available, including drones and satellite images that have the potential to make the application of these chemicals much more targeted and less damaging. I am told that those techniques are already being used in other countries, but if we are not monitoring pesticides and their impact, there is no way that we will be able to encourage or assist farmers to adopt more selective and less damaging techniques.
All Members present have been repeatedly promised by Ministers that when we left Europe, we would bring in stronger human and environmental protections, or at least equivalence. The Labour party believes that that is an absolute minimum, we should monitor what impact pesticides are having; where that impact is concentrated; and whether children, mothers and babies have been affected, especially in rural communities where exposure is likely to be higher. This amendment does not ban anything. It does not stop any farmer who needs to use safe pesticides on their crops, or to use them to increase their yields, from doing so. It simply states that we are not averting our gaze, but keeping our eyes open to the known risks; that we look to reduce those risks; and that we will particularly protect women and children in rural communities. On that basis, I ask that the clause be read a Second time.
Victoria Prentis
I assure the hon. Gentleman that our eyes are very open when it comes to ensuring that the use of pesticides is minimised, and that pesticide usage and its effects are carefully monitored. Current policies address these points already. Strict regulation only allows pesticide use when scientific risk assessments predict that there will be no harm to people and no unacceptable effects on the environment. Existing monitoring schemes cover each of the points proposed in the amendment. They report on the level of usage of each pesticide and on residue levels in food. They also collect and consider reports about possible harm to people or the environment.
The Government support good work to research, develop and promote means to move away from pesticides, which I am sure is our collective aim. These include: plant breeding for pest-resistant varieties; the use of natural predators; the development of biopesticides; and the use of a variety of cultural methods to reduce pest pressures.
The Government intend to continue to develop and refine our approach to pesticides. The 25-year environment plan is where the hon. Gentleman will find most of these details. The plan emphasises the importance of integrated pest management. That means not only that pesticides are used well, but that the approach to farming minimises the need for pesticides and that alternative methods are used wherever possible. Where these practices are shown to help to deliver public goods, they may well be funded under the new environmental land management schemes. We will determine in more detail which ELMS will pay for what as we develop the schemes in the future.
The approach set out in the 25-year environment plan is the right one and we hope that it will minimise pesticide use, help to reduce risks and strongly encourage the uptake of alternatives to pesticides. Alongside the maintenance and development of effective monitoring, this approach will deliver the main outcomes sought by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened closely to the Minister and there was much that I probably agree with. However, I would have predicted that we would return to the vexed question of which piece of legislation this proposal would sit in, and we believe that it would be inappropriate to have a piece of major agricultural legislation without reference to it. On that basis, I will push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Thank you, Sir David—[Interruption.] There is some confusion on this side; I apologise. I blame the late publication of the 109-page document.
Daniel Zeichner
Why does it take the Government so long—since 2018—to respond, and why do they finally respond on the day that we discuss this issue in Committee? We probably all know the politics behind these things, but it is disappointing when it involves such an important subject, discussion of which has been so eagerly awaited by so many people, because it is a highly controversial subject. The science involved is complicated.
In the spirit of sharing the responsibilities across the shadow team, I will pass over to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East in a moment—I hope that she will be called to speak. However, the Labour Front Bench welcomes the Government’s belated response. We also find some things in the response helpful, and we think the Government are changing direction, but not quickly enough. We will make a more considered and detailed response when we have had time to consider it in detail, but our belief is that far too many badgers have been unnecessarily killed. The science is not clear and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much transmission from cattle to cattle. It is not a simple issue. We fully recognise the huge damage, economic cost and distress that bovine TB causes in many areas. As I say, we welcome the direction of travel, but we believe that it should be much swifter.
Nadia Whittome
The Government’s much-delayed response to the Godfray report, published this morning, finally concedes to implement more effective methods of containing bovine TB, such as cattle and badger vaccinations. Of course, scientists, activists and politicians have been saying that for years. Can the Minister explain why it has taken the culling of an estimated 130,000 badgers for the Government to come to the same conclusion that most of us came to years ago? Will she provide an estimate of the number of badgers that will be killed before the switch to vaccinations and other non-lethal preventive measures?
The Government’s U-turn on the badger cull is welcome. I would like to think that it is because the Prime Minister knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and I were going to speak to the issue, but I suspect there is someone else he listens to more. It is simply inexcusable, however, that further inhumane killing of this iconic species will continue for several years, especially as the Government have conceded that that is not the most effective strategy for containing bovine TB.
The former Government adviser Professor Ranald Munro recently said that a large number of badgers are likely to have suffered “immense pain” during culls. It is evident that the correct thing for the Government to do would be to bring forward the ban and start implementing non-lethal alternatives without delay.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Lady not aware that we do not yet have a vaccine that allows us to identify the difference between a vaccinated animal and an infected animal? Until we have that type of vaccine, it will not be possible to make the switch.
Nadia Whittome
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the state of the science does not prevent the new clause from being made. New clause 21 provides the Government with an opportunity, on the day that they released their long-awaited response to the Godfray review, to urgently put an end to the inhumane and ineffective badger cull, rather than allowing it to continue for another five years.
Victoria Prentis
Bovine TB is one of our most difficult animal health challenges. It costs the Government about £100 million a year and industry around £50 million a year. Tackling it is important. It imposes a tremendous pressure on the wellbeing of our cattle farmers and their families. Many Committee members, including me, represent constituencies that are exposed to the misery of bovine TB on a daily basis. Left unchecked, bovine TB also poses a threat to public health although that is, to a large extent, mitigated today by milk pasteurisation. My grandfather died of tuberculosis, so I have always taken a close personal interest in the subject. It is a peculiar and complicated disease that it is important for us to take seriously.
No single measure will achieve eradication by our target date of 2038, which is why we are committed to pursuing a wide range of interventions, including culling and vaccination, to deal with the risk from wildlife. Of course culling is a controversial policy, but we have scientific evidence to show that, to a certain extent, it is working. The new review is clear that the evidence indicates that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to local cattle herds. The review considers that moving from lethal to non-lethal control of disease in badgers is desirable. Of course, we would all go along with that. We have reached a point where intensive culling will soon have been enabled in most of the areas where it has served the greatest impact. As announced in the Government response today, we will be able to develop measures to make badger vaccination, combined with biosecurity, the focus of addressing risks from wildlife as an exit strategy from intensive culling. Our aim is to allow future badger culls only where the epidemiological evidence points to a reservoir of disease in badgers.
Nobody wants to cull badgers inappropriately, but nor can we allow our farmers, their families and our wider dairy and beef industries to continue to suffer the misery and costs caused by the disease. That is why it is right that we take strong and decisive action to tackle the problem effectively, while always looking to evolve towards non-lethal options in future. I therefore do not think the new clause is appropriate.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened closely to the Minister’s comments. I suspect we will come back to this issue. We have been discussing it for the past 10 or 20 years. I fully appreciate what a serious issue it is and how it directly affects both her family and many others. However, at the general election we stood on a clear pledge to end the badger cull. We stand by that and the new clause would put it into law. The direction of travel of the Godfray report today reflects that the Government, on the basis of scientific evidence, are beginning to move in that direction. I suspect it is still partly about costs, because culling is more expensive. The vaccination question that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned is important, but it is important that we follow the science as it develops. We want to eradicate and defend and protect. The issue is of considerable public interest, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on whether an existing agency, such as the Rural Payments Agency, or a new body should administer payments and other functions delivered under the Bill. This is an important juncture in our consideration of the Bill. This will probably be, in the words of our former colleague David Drew, “the most popular part”, as we are giving the opportunity to those who wish to be consulted to get rid of the Rural Payments Agency. But, as is always the case, things do not have to be that way. The Government could ensure that we have a strengthened and effective payments agency, but that agency will likely have to be a new body with a strong and effective mandate to do its work. We cannot rely on an existing agency that has a reputation for wrong payments, late payments and no payments at all.
The new clause is not meant to be confusing; it is very clearly about charting a realistic way forward that has the support of those who will be seeking support and funding from Her Majesty’s Government in the years ahead. We would welcome it if the Minister stood up and announced a strong and empowered agency, but if she cannot do that today, we want the new clause to stand part of the Bill. We are entering uncharted waters—as the shadow Minister with responsibility for water, I know all about that—and we have the chance to take stock, reflect and start anew.
Much has been made of the future and the new way of doing things. The Government have made a great many promises to our farmers and agricultural workers. If we take the Bill and the Government press lines as they stand, we are entering a new and glorious world, but I caution those on the Treasury Bench to make good on their pledges and promises to our farmers and all those working in the agricultural sector. The demands on those people and workers are great, and the potential to increase support is huge, so let us take it.
The new clause will ensure that things are done properly when it comes to the many financial provisions in the Bill and the passing on of vital payments, that the powers and resources are exercised effectively, and that we do our best for our farmers going forward. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and respond accordingly.
Victoria Prentis
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that we will consult extensively on the use of the various powers in the Bill. We know that the delivery of the previous CAP scheme was not as good as we wanted it to be, or as good as farmers deserved. Therefore, we will design new arrangements that will make it as simple as possible for people to apply for funding. We want to ensure that payments are prompt and accurate.
In the short term, the Rural Payments Agency will continue to administer direct payments and countryside stewardship payments, and considerable progress has been made in their delivery and achievement in recent years. We have seen a significant increase in performance and are putting in place further improvements to delivery.
As discussed last week, there will be a public consultation on ELM. Stakeholders will be able to provide us with feedback across all elements of the schemes. We use such feedback to inform decisions on who will be best placed to provide the service for the ELM and other financial schemes going forward. Before consulting on how we deliver future schemes, we will want to refine our policies further. Once we have established who is best placed to deliver the reform, we can take views on how to roll it out. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments and for her honesty in accepting that there have been flaws and deficiencies in the previous system. We all share the same aim: we want payments to be made accurately and promptly. We look forward to the promised improvements at the RPA and will therefore not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Agriculture Co-ordination Council
“(1) There shall be an Agricultural Co-ordination Council composed of—
(a) the Secretary of State, or representatives of the Secretary of State,
(b) Scottish Ministers, or representatives of Scottish Ministers,
(c) Welsh Ministers, or representatives of Welsh Ministers, and
(d) DAERA.
(2) The Council shall establish a common framework to monitor any disparities within the United Kingdom—
(a) in standards of food production;
(b) arising from the exercise of powers to give financial assistance for any purpose which may be specified;
(c) arising from the power to make payments under the basic payment scheme or to make delinked payments; and
(d) in marketing standards.
(3) The Council shall review any framework established under subsection (2) at least once in each calendar year, and may amend a framework.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Thangam Debbonaire
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On behalf of the Labour Front Bench—both the shadow DEFRA and European affairs teams—this is an offer. The new clause is probing, as I am sure the Minister will have noticed. We seem to have got a bit stuck in Committee on the question of how, as we leave the EU, we resolve tensions between devolved powers and duties in agriculture and the reserved powers and duties on WTO compliance.
As we said on WTO compliance, it is a sad state of affairs that we have got to, but none the less we have. The new clause makes the modest suggestion of creating a route to assist in resolving that tension. Establishing an agriculture co-ordination council does not undermine either UK sovereignty or devolution, but it attempts to provide a forum for discussing and addressing any possible differences that might affect compliance, undermine the consistency of standards, or involve various other matters listed in the new clause.
We are not being particularly prescriptive. We have suggested elected Government Ministers or their representatives, so that the council is democratically accountable, but we have left open the timetable and the process. The new clause is a suggestion—not one that we will press to a vote, but one that gives the Minister the opportunity to tell us what she believes the alternatives to be. If not this, then what?
Victoria Prentis
I am reminded that the Government Whip and I both read English at university, and “A Modest Proposal” can mean something quite different. However, I thank the hon. Lady for her new clause seeking to establish an agriculture co-ordination council. I accept that she is asking me generally to explain our plans.
The UK Government have been collaborating closely with all devolved Administrations on a UK-wide framework for agricultural support based on Joint Ministerial Committee principles over the past two and a half years. The framework is planned to cover policy areas such as agricultural support spending, crisis measures, public intervention, private storage aid, marketing standards, cross-border farms and data collection and sharing.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Minister for responding to our probing amendment with more information, as I had hoped she would. I reserve judgment on her assertion that what she described all works very well, because that is a matter for the devolved Administrations to comment on, and I expect that they will in due course, possibly in the final stages. I am happy not to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Agricultural co-operatives
“(1) The Secretary of State must promote agricultural co-operatives by—
(a) offering financial assistance for the creation or development of agricultural co-operatives, and
(b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and guidance for the development of new co-operatives.
(2) The Secretary of State shall examine any proposal for primary or secondary legislation to assess—
(a) its impact upon agricultural co-operatives, and
(b) whether that impact is disproportionate in relation to its impact upon other producer organisations or interbranch organisations.
(3) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may be given by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form.
(4) An organisation shall be recognised as an agricultural co-operative if it meets the conditions in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) Condition 1 is that the organisation—
(a) is registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as a co-operative, or
(b) is constituted under the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.
(6) Condition 2 is that the organisation—
(a) operates in a sector which is listed in Schedule 1 to this Act, and
(b) includes at least one member which is an agricultural or horticultural producer.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision specifying the criteria under which financial assistance under subsection (1)(a) may be offered.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote agricultural co-operatives.—(Daniel Zeichner.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe it important that the Bill properly supports co-operative models of farming, as they contribute greatly to a fairer and more resilient agricultural sector. By working together, farmers can benefit from mutual protection, access to new markets, cost savings and efficiency, and a louder collective voice for the industry, all of which will be particularly important in the light of the uncertainty caused by our withdrawal from the European Union.
As our countryside is likely to become increasingly commercialised with, I fear, bigger farms and possibly bigger profits, co-operative approaches also provide a counterbalance to the growing consolidation of ownership of farms and food manufacturing in the hands of a few big agribusinesses or international conglomerates. Many players in our agricultural sector already belong to co-operatives. They may not be as strong as in other countries, but more than 140,000 British farmers are members and co-owners of more than 400 agriculture and farmer co-operatives that work across many levels in the supply chain, from milk marketing and processing to arable crop storage, produce marketing and retail supplies.
The Bill is missing clear provisions to make it easier for current and new co-operatives to succeed in farming by providing practical support, funding and protection from the inadvertent impact of future legislation or regulation. The new clause would therefore lock into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to promote agriculture co-operatives by offering financial assistance for their creation and development and to establish bodies to provide practical support and guidance for their development. That support could come in the form of grant or loan funding and through the creation of organisations similar to the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, which I understand provides practical support such as advice, networking, shared services and linking agriculture co-operatives to potential opportunities.
The clause would also guarantee that the impact of proposed legislation on agriculture co-operatives is considered. That would ensure that future legislation does not inadvertently make it harder to be a co-operative than any other form of business. That is particularly important in the short to medium term, as much of the detail of the post-Brexit settlement for farmers will come in secondary legislation, to which I am sure we are all hugely looking forward.
The Bill is short on detail, and it is important that any undue impact on co-operatives is mitigated against as the detail is fleshed out. That would also help to future-proof the sector against inadvertent undue harm as policy develops over the long term. We hope that the Government will recognise the contribution of co-operatives and the merits of our proposals. It is important that we properly safeguard that sector within farming and that co-operatives are properly supported and encouraged.
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely agree that farmers can benefit in many ways by co-operating and working together. Co-operation provides opportunities to cut costs and achieve economies of scale, whether through purchasing resources or processing and marketing produce. Co-operatives can gain control and hold a stronger position in the supply chain than people who work alone. By working together, farmers can share knowledge and best practice and support each other to improve productivity and spread innovation.
Clause 1(2) already allows us to provide financial assistance to help farmers to improve productivity. We would like to be able to help farmers to invest in equipment and infrastructure that will help them to benefit from working together. Furthermore, there are provisions elsewhere in the Bill that allow us to create a bespoke UK producer organisations regime, which we will tailor to the needs of UK producers who are interested in collaborating further together.
I hope that that provides some reassurance that we are already supporting, and will continue to support, farmers who want to come together to share knowledge, reduce costs, and strengthen their position in the supply chain.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister, and I think I have had sufficient reassurance on that. On that basis, I am happy not to proceed and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Carbon emissions: net-zero
29‘(1) When considering the provision of financial assistance under sections 1(1) and 1(2) of this Act, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the likely impact of that funding is compatible with the achievement of any emissions reduction target set out in subsection (2).
(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to—
(a) within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for agricultural soil, livestock, peatland and machinery, for the year 2030, which are consistent with an emissions reduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantial majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and
(b) ensure that the targets are met.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish a statement of the policies to be delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction targets published under subsection (2).
(4) In this section “soil”, “livestock”, “peatland” and “machinery” shall all relate to that used, owned, or operated in the process of farming or any other agricultural activity.”’—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the agricultural sector.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think everyone will be pleased that we are getting towards the finishing straight, but, in the meantime, we believe that the Bill needs to have far stronger net zero commitments. As I have said, it is essential that the climate crisis should be front and centre of the Bill, which will be one of the most important pieces of legislation we have had in the past decade to help to meet the climate emergency. Yes, the Government have said that they are committed to reaching net zero by 2050, but the National Farmers Union has demonstrated much more ambitious leadership by setting a closer target—for the agriculture sector to reach net zero by 2040.
Sadly, we know that the Government are currently not on track to meet their carbon emission goals in the 2030s, let alone to reach net zero by 2050, and the 2040 target remains a voluntary one for the agriculture sector. The fact is that the Committee on Climate Change’s 2019 progress report has shown that UK agriculture is not on track with any of its indicators, and there has been little progress in reducing emissions from agriculture since 2008. As only 30% of direct payments are currently secured through meeting greening requirements—an improvement on the previous system, but still not good enough and way short of what is needed—we can see that a lack of financial incentives or legal requirements for farmers to adapt their practices to reduce emissions is part of the problem. That is why it is so important that the Bill should set out clear targets and a proper plan for how agriculture will be expected to reduce its emissions and by what date.
As things stand, all that the Bill does, effectively, is stipulate that the Secretary of State may—not even “must”, to go back to where we started—provide financial assistance under clause 1 for the purposes of climate change and adaptation, as well as other public goods that will have positive impacts on carbon storage, such as good soil management. We have no assurances about how much priority those clause 1 elements that could deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be given by the Government when funding the measures in the Bill. There are no guarantees that farmers will even take up the new environmental land management schemes in the first place to deliver those vital agricultural adaptations to reduce carbon emissions, and there is no plan for how agriculture is expected to meet any net zero target, be that by 2050, 2040 or earlier.
For the Government to say that they are truly committed to transforming our agricultural and land management systems in order to reduce emissions and avert climate catastrophe, the Bill needs to be much strengthened with a coherent, joined-up approach. That has been the purpose of many of our amendments, which we have discussed over the past few weeks. I think I am correct in saying that, sadly, they have been rejected in their entirety by the Government—so far: there is always hope, right to the end. [Laughter.] I do not think there is—but anyway.
The Bill needs binding emission targets for all the key areas of agricultural emissions—soil, livestock, peatland and machinery—for a given date, with clear direction from the Secretary of State on how it is intended to reach them. The NFU suggests 2040. We believe that the target should be in line with that, but that it has got to be even more ambitious if we are to properly address the climate emergency. We propose setting targets that are in line with eliminating the substantial majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
We heard of the need for proper targets in the Bill from numerous witnesses in the evidence sessions. That would be the best way to give the legislation some teeth and proper direction and ensure that the Government’s proposed aims for the Bill of reducing agricultural carbon emissions are actually delivered to a timescale that will make those emission reductions effective for averting the climate catastrophe. The urgency of the climate crisis is too real and too important for any less than that.
New clause 29 would align agriculture with the emissions reduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantial majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to publish emission reductions targets for agricultural soil, livestock, peatland and machinery for the year 2030 that are consistent with this aim, to publish a statement within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act of the policies to be delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction targets, and to ensure those targets are met. The new clause would also ensure that, in providing financial assistance for the clause 1 purposes, the impact of that funding is compatible with the achievement of the target of reducing the substantial majority of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
There can be no more important point on which to conclude our deliberations today. It is a simple test for the Government: are they up to tackling the climate crisis or not? I fear we are about to hear a lot of noes.
Victoria Prentis
Yes, the Government are up to dealing with the climate crisis and are determined to do so, and yes, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no more important thing that we should be doing as a Government.
I am really proud that the UK became the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the UK economy by 2050. We already have a strong foundation of action and leadership to build from, having cut our emissions by 42% since 1990 while growing the economy by 72%. That does not mean that we are complacent or that we do not recognise that there is a great deal more to do, urgently.
Victoria Prentis
I am going to make some progress.
Climate change is a global challenge, requiring action across the whole economy. We do not have sector-specific targets. That is to ensure that we meet our climate change commitments at the lowest possible net cost to UK taxpayers, consumers and businesses, while maximising the social and economic benefits to the UK of the transition.
We have set out a range of specific commitments, in the 25-year environment plan and under the clean growth strategy, to reduce emissions from agriculture. That includes strengthening biosecurity and control of endemic diseases in livestock, and encouraging use of low-emission fertilisers. However, we know that, to achieve net zero, more is needed from the sector. We are looking to reduce agricultural emissions controlled directly within the farm boundary with a broad range of cost-effective measures, primarily through improvements to on-farm efficiency and land use change.
The new ELM scheme will help us to contribute to our net zero commitment by providing farmers with an opportunity to receive financial reward for delivering a range of public goods. We already report on climate change performance under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the convention on biological diversity. Additional reporting as required by the new clause would place an unnecessary burden on the Government without delivering significant new information to Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner
So, we come full circle, back to where we started. I listened closely to the Minister and I end up being disappointed, sadly. I point out that the Government were dragged unwillingly to the 2050 target. It was the Leader of the Opposition who led on that, and it will be Labour in the future that will deliver us from the climate emergency. I did hear a “yes” at one point in the Minister’s speech, and I hope she might just be able to say yes in a moment, when we come to the vote.
This all comes back to the balance between cost and possibility. I kept hearing the words “lowest possible cost”. This is not something that can be done at low cost. The climate emergency is absolutely real, immediate and urgent. There is a fundamental difference between the two sides here on how we approach it. The Minister mentioned environmental land management schemes. We talked much about that last week. There are no guarantees in the Bill that they will achieve the uptake or the outcomes that we are looking for.
There has been a clear division of opinion throughout the discussions on the Bill. It does too little. It is not strong enough. It does not guarantee the way forward that we need. Agriculture is still a major contributor to the climate crisis. We need to find a way of taking the sector to a much better place. This new clause would help us to do that.
Victoria Prentis
On a point of order, Sir David. I understand that now is the right point to thank you very much for your chairmanship. I also thank the other Chair who has helped us with the proceedings, all the Clerks and the civil servants, who have helped us enormously with the production and the taking through of the Bill. I very much thank the Committee members and the Government and Opposition Whips, who have steered the Bill so seamlessly and with a certain amount of agreement and jollity around the edges.
Daniel Zeichner
On a point of order, Sir David. I expect that I will say something remarkably similar. I particularly thank you and Mr Stringer for your excellent chairmanship. I thank the Whips for making the Committee run so smoothly and efficiently. As we approach International Women’s Day, I look around the room and notice that all my team appear to be women, and there appears to a majority of women on the Government side, too. I think that reflects an important step forward in this place. I suspect that this has been a more gentle and consensual discussion than one might have had otherwise, although I have been chided from my own side for being insufficiently dressed on occasion.
I thank the Clerks, who have been extraordinarily helpful in translating not always clear instructions into workable amendments. I thank all the staff working across the shadow teams; it has been a particularly difficult time. I particularly thank the adviser Rob Wakely and my assistant Rafaelle Robin. We probably expected far too much from them in a short period of time, and I am eternally grateful. All the mistakes are my responsibility.
Deidre Brock
On a point of order, Sir David. Briefly, I thank you and Mr Stringer for your good-humoured chairmanship of the proceedings, and the Clerks, who have been tremendously helpful to my colleague and me. I thank Hansard, who sit there patiently recording our every word, and the Officers, who have had to get up and down frequently to close the doors and open them again. My thanks to all the Committee members for interesting proceedings. I look forward to the Bill reaching Report and to further discussion on many important points.
The Chair
Mr Stringer and I would like to thank all hon. Members for their generous remarks. We thank Hansard and officials for all their support. We particularly wish to commend the Doorkeepers. One had to cope with a key breaking in the door while he was locking it; another was opening the windows at the same time as closing the doors—there is an example of multitasking. Most of all, I thank our Clerks. Without them and their wise counsel, the Committee would not have run so smoothly. I congratulate hon. Members on the way that they dealt with the proceedings, in spite of my many stumblings.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
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
Post Office and Horizon Software
(4 years, 9 months 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
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s process for review of convictions relating to the Post Office and Horizon accounting system.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and a privilege to have secured this debate. Following the completion of the litigation process, I am sure it will be the first of many on different aspects of this miscarriage of justice.
I pay tribute to those who have fought the corner of postmasters affected by the Horizon IT system over many years, particularly Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his sterling work, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord), who has worked so hard on the terrible case of Seema Misra, and many other Members across the House who have long campaigned on this issue.
I pay a particularly special tribute to those Post Office workers and campaigners who have had to overcome the myriad obstacles and hurdles that have been put in their way over the years. I am humbled by their fortitude and dignity, as they have continually—indeed, stoically—endured much in many ways, as their quest for justice goes on.
I have not come to Westminster Hall today to level criticism at the Post Office, nor to set out the background to the successful group litigation against the Post Office. I have no need to do so because the honourable Mr Justice Fraser, who I am sure will eventually go down in history as the next Lord Denning, has already comprehensively done so in his very fine judgments, particularly that handed down on 16 December 2019. I will, however, draw attention to the way in which the Post Office embarked on what appears to any outside observer to have been a war of attrition against its former employees throughout the litigation process, repeatedly appealing every decision, seeking to recuse the judge, and appealing the judgments that were handed down. That war of attrition ground down the claimants and forced them into a settlement, most of which will go towards meeting their legal fees.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the settlement. The case was supposed to be settled through a process of mediation. The settlement came to more than £57 million. Does she not think that it is outrageous that most of that sum is going to lawyers, which brings into disrepute the whole process of mediation—and I say that as a mediator myself? It is outrageous that mediation can charge so much for what was a fairly straightforward operation.
Lucy Allan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that vital point. Many of the postmasters thought that the £57 million would go to them, as was announced in the press. However, after the legal costs have been paid, it is unlikely that sufficient moneys will be left over to compensate even those from whom the Post Office extracted money when their tills did not balance. Even that money may not be refunded, never mind the costs for the actual losses suffered by postmasters. There will be nothing at all left for actual compensation.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that this whole episode has had far-reaching consequences for those affected by it. She will also be aware that the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is going to hold an inquiry. Does she share my view that there needs to be more than that? We need a full and comprehensive public inquiry, to ensure that this kind of shambles, which has cost so many people so much, never happens again.
Lucy Allan
The hon. Lady makes a very important point, which I will return to a little later in my speech. It is very welcome indeed that the BEIS Committee will look at this issue.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that this business—the Post Office—was effectively wholly owned by the Government. None of us should argue about whether lawyers should be paid for bringing litigation on behalf of these victims, but should not the Government themselves step in to ensure that all of that money—all of those lawyers’ fees—is paid by the Government?
Lucy Allan
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and it is absolutely right that those sub-postmasters who paid money they did not owe to the Post Office—simply on the basis of their tills not balancing, which was due to a flaw in the Horizon IT system—should be fully compensated for those losses, not to mention those they then suffered as consequence.
Actually, Fujitsu has a role to play in this process as well, because the judge made clear in his judgment that he doubted the veracity of some of the information he was given, and he subsequently made a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions to query that information. There is a separate debate to be had on that issue, which we could have at a later stage.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
May I praise my hon. Friend for her campaign against this miscarriage of justice? I and many other MPs are here in Westminster Hall today on behalf of our constituents. I am here on behalf of just three of the victims of this scandal: Gillian and Graham Howard, and Maria Lockwood. There are other victims across the country. Will my hon. Friend continue to work with me and other MPs so that we get justice and full redress for the victims of this miscarriage of justice?
Lucy Allan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right that it is now down to us as parliamentarians to put right this miscarriage of justice. I am grateful for the support of many MPs from all parties, but I am also grateful, as I said earlier, for the incredible campaigning work that was done long before I came to this place.
I will make just one more point before I move on to the main issues I want to raise. I will put on the record that the judge handed down findings that confirmed that bugs, errors and defects did indeed exist in the Horizon IT accounting system, and that these defects had caused financial discrepancies, for which postmasters were held accountable. That is a very important finding and I am pleased to place it on the record.
The purpose of this debate, now that the litigation is complete, is to highlight the need to find a mechanism that will allow those Post Office workers affected by this scandal to put the nightmare behind them and move forward with their lives. Of course, until convictions are quashed and criminal records expunged, it is very hard to see how they can possibly do that.
So many of these decent people were pillars of their communities, working in a respected role in what was once a respected institution. They speak of the way that the wrongful allegations of theft and fraud, and their wrongful imprisonment, affected their reputations in their community, causing a deep sense of stigma, social isolation and shame for themselves and their families. For some of them, that was too much to bear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for us all to comment on, and so we can support her, too, as always. Does she agree that, since our courts have found that the Horizon system was unreliable, it follows that the convictions that relied on the Horizon data may also be unreliable? The argument that the interests of justice cannot be met unless we review convictions based on this flawed system is, therefore, understandable. The judgment, however, did not deal with the question of convictions, so there is still work to do to address that.
Lucy Allan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention, because we are just at the beginning. We now have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to start work. This matter is no longer sub judice—we can talk about it—and it is fantastic that there is a groundswell of support from right across both Houses.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My hon. Friend and neighbour is making a very powerful case on behalf of all the victims, including my constituent, Rubbina Shaheen, who is one of three or four postmistresses who got into severe difficulties as a result of this error on the part of Fujitsu. She was convicted in 2010 and spent 12 months in jail. Her life was destroyed and she and her husband lost their home. What does my hon. Friend think we can do to try to hold to account those who are responsible and provide some justice for our constituents?
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and I am glad he has had the opportunity to raise that distressing case. There is a great deal we can do to correct this miscarriage of justice. This debate is just the beginning. I have had very constructive conversations with members of the Ministry of Justice team. Overturning the convictions is one element, but we must have a mechanism to hold to account those who were responsible, who at some point in this saga were fully aware that the Horizon system was flawed. I am delighted that the BEIS Committee will, I hope, invite many of those responsible to give evidence.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on the work she has done. My constituent Karl Reid describes himself as one of the lucky ones because he was not jailed or convicted, but he did lose £50,000 and two businesses. He felt that he had to move out of the area where he used to have those businesses because of the associated shame and concern. Does she agree that, although it is a priority to get the convictions overturned, the consequences of the scandal go so much broader, to people such as Karl Reid? He describes himself as lucky, but I would not describe him as lucky, and I am sure the hon. Lady would not, either.
Lucy Allan
The hon. Lady is right and I fully endorse what she says. One direct benefit of the settlement and the conclusion of the litigation is that, as the representatives of postmasters who have been so grotesquely wronged, we now have the opportunity to correct that. I am thankful that the day has come.
I say to all those postmasters affected by this injustice that this debate is just the beginning. The Prime Minister has promised to get to the bottom of what happened, and I understand from what I heard at Prime Minister’s questions last week that he has agreed to an independent inquiry. Regrettably, in my experience, those responsible will have long since retired before any such inquiry even gets under way, but it is in any event a welcome first step.
What is hugely to be welcomed—I think all sub-postmasters affected will welcome this—is that next week the BEIS Committee will begin holding its inquiry and taking evidence. My constituent, Tracy Felstead, will be giving evidence next Tuesday. She is perhaps one of the most tragic cases, having only been a young 18-year-old girl in her first job straight out of school, delighted to be going to work for the Post Office. She ended up in Holloway Prison for six months and is still struggling to come to terms with the reality of what happened to her. The BEIS Committee inquiry is a fantastic opportunity for all the issues of the Horizon accounting system to be explored, in-depth and in public, and that is very important. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) is a very thorough Chair, and she will hold those responsible to account through her Committee. I know that all of us here today will welcome that.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate. I certainly welcome the BEIS Committee inquiry into the issue. Although justice and compensation are entirely appropriate, does she agree that no amount of compensation will restore the dignity that was lost by so many or repair the damage done to people’s physical and mental health by this long-standing scandal?
Lucy Allan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: no amount of money will ever compensate those affected. We need to help them get their lives back on track, and there are various ways we can do that. Having a sense that justice has been done is incredibly important, even if it is not possible to fully compensate for the losses suffered.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
My constituent Pamela Lock had 80 hours of community service and, like many others, was sacked from the Post Office, but she continues to have a successful shop and bakery. We all understand that the financial pay-out will not be enough for the people affected and does not cover the losses, but the hon. Member said this debate is just the beginning. If this is the beginning, what hope can we give to victims of this travesty in terms of the timescale they have to work in?
Lucy Allan
The hon. Lady is right to raise that point, because many of these people have been suffering for many years. My constituent was one of the very first victims of this miscarriage of justice, with the event happening to her in 2000, so Members can imagine how she has suffered throughout that period. Indeed, her family have suffered, too.
I will move on to the question of how we get to the review of these convictions. A group litigation order was approved by the president of the Queen’s bench division, so it follows that a group remedy is possible when there are clearly common themes. One such common theme must surely be that convictions were achieved on the basis of the Horizon IT evidence, which Justice Fraser has ruled, as I said earlier, to be not “remotely robust” and prone to errors.
Dialogue with the Criminal Cases Review Commission has been helpful, and I am confident that it realises that the case is exceptional and should be treated as such, and that it will carefully consider all the common themes that would enable a referral to the Court of Appeal to be grouped. I very much hope that the CCRC continues with that mindset. I understand from my discussions with representatives of the Post Office that it would prefer each case to be treated separately. They have said that the Post Office will insist that those who pleaded guilty to false accounting should be excluded from the process. However, it seems to me that that should not be a matter for the Post Office to involve itself in. Should the cases be referred by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, the Post Office will be a respondent. It would be wholly wrong for the Post Office to be involved in any decisions around the mechanisms for the quashing of the convictions, given that the convictions are of people whom it sought to prosecute.
One of the representatives of the Post Office said to me that he doubts many cases will be referred to the Court of Appeal and that those that do are unlikely to succeed. It seems to me that rather than learning the lessons and moving forward, as the Post Office suggests it has, it is in fact still intent on protecting the interests of the institution at all costs. That is hugely damaging to the Post Office. We love the Post Office. We support the Post Office and we want it to thrive, but to continue with that mindset, which Justice Fraser referred to as “institutional obstinacy”, is not only damaging to the Post Office brand and reputation, but adds insult to injury for those who have suffered as a direct consequence of its failure to see the world as round.
I have huge admiration for the Minister, who I know is a man of enormous integrity with an inquiring mind. He will, I have no doubt, read around the subject in depth, and I wish him well in his new role as Minister for the Post Office. With a new Minister in post, a new Government in office and a fine judgment from Justice Fraser, we have an opportunity to get justice done. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how Government can help postmasters overturn wrongful convictions in a timely manner. I urge him to work with the excellent Minister for miscarriages of justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to see how Government can help to support the CCRC in these unique circumstances and ensure that the Post Office and its management stay well out of these decisions.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
As well as encouraging the Minister to see whether there is a way to overturn these wrongful convictions, does the hon. Lady agree that he should see if there is a way that people such as my constituent, who suffered losses of more than £100,000 and was forced to sell his business, are rightfully compensated? When I heard the size of the award, I was so pleased for all my constituents, but the majority of it seems to have gone on legal fees. My constituent tells me that he will receive hardly any of the £100,000 he lost, not to mention compensation. Does the hon. Lady think that the Government should seek to ensure that the majority of the award goes to the victims?
Lucy Allan
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is unbelievable that the announcement was made by the Post Office on 11 December, when we all know what we were doing on 12 December. It was supposed to be part of a confidentiality agreement, and the Post Office announced that £57 million was to be paid to sub-postmasters when that was of course not the case. That is further evidence of the way in which the Post Office has conducted itself throughout the process. It is not acceptable to mislead in that way. The judge said almost the same thing regarding some of the evidence that was put before him. I therefore fully agree that that was a shameful part of this saga, although the whole saga is deeply shameful.
I invite the Minister to consider the many very real conflicts of interest. I will not outline them all, but I will put on record that his Department owns the equity in the Post Office, provides up to £1 billion in debt funding, approves the board, monitors performance, and provides annual grants. Last year’s grant was £50 million. I will say no more on that, but I will give him a list of the conflicts of interest, which also include personnel, at a later date. In a modern business environment, we need to be alert to the fact that such conflicts do not prevent justice from being done.
I am encouraged by discussions with Ministers and across parties. There is a clear will in Parliament to move forward and see justice done. Whatever obstacles the Post Office continues to put in the way, I hope it senses the appetite in Parliament and hears the voice of the judge in this case. The Post Office needs to stop putting obstacles in the way of justice; it is doing the organisation no favours whatever.
I am sure the Minister will agree that the Post Office has had the opportunity to be part of the solution over and over again, and that that time has passed. Given all its actions throughout, including the mediation process back in 2015 that it simply cancelled—it did not like what the forensic accountants were saying, and it fired them—the Post Office has had its opportunity to be part of the solution. Its behaviour in the litigation suggests that it has no interest whatever in finding a solution for postmasters; its interests lie in preserving the institution no matter what.
I hope we can all ensure that the Post Office does not stand in the way of the work of the CCRC or the Court of Appeal. I put on record my thanks to the campaign group, which has done amazing work against the odds, and to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who allowed this debate. I know that many others wanted to be granted a debate on this subject, and I am grateful that I was given the opportunity. It is we, in this place, who must now find a solution to this grotesque injustice—a miscarriage of justice of immense proportions—and we must do so whatever the obstacles, come what may.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this incredibly important debate, and thank her for the work that she has been doing to expose the Post Office’s utterly despicable behaviour in the entire proceedings, from the very outset when people were prosecuted.
Prior to my election to the House, I practised criminal law from my local chambers in Hull, prosecuting and defending. Prior to that, I worked for a firm of solicitors in Hull, the Max Gold Partnership. I think it was in 2006 that I met a sub-postmaster who was implicated in these proceedings. Janet Skinner was prosecuted by the Post Office for theft. During the short proceedings, the prosecution offered her the opportunity to plead guilty to false accounting, which she did. She was sentenced accordingly by Hull Crown court, and received a custodial sentence of nine months in prison.
Janet Skinner had a son, Matthew, who was 14 and clearly busy with his studies in preparation for various exams that were coming down the track. Her daughter, Toni, who was 17, was in the middle of examinations at the time. It was an incredible shock to Janet Skinner. I remember her instructions to me quite well. I have had the opportunity to speak with her subsequently; indeed, I spoke to her yesterday evening. When I think back, with the benefit of hindsight, I find it chilling and it makes my blood run cold. The prosecuting authority offered the opportunity to plead to a lesser offence, yet according to Janet’s instructions to me, she was effectively led to commit the offence of false accounting.
It is a bit like being locked in a burning building, speaking to the emergency services, being advised to smash a window to get out and then, weeks or months later, being prosecuted for the offence of criminal damage. It is utterly deplorable. Lawyers watching the debate will say that that is not a perfect analogy because there is an inbuilt defence to criminal damage, which is reasonable excuse. That does not exist for section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which provides for the offence of false accounting. It really is utterly deplorable. Janet Skinner and others contacted the Post Office to say, “We have problems with the system. The books are not balancing. What’s going on?”. The Post Office should have investigated the IT system, rather than rushing to interview and investigate, and threatening to interview people whether they liked it or not.
The contract between the sub-postmaster and the Post Office was unbelievable. I did not know this then, but the contract said that sub-postmasters were not allowed legal representation in those initial proceedings. Therefore, their only possible representation was through the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which happens to be completely owned and financed by Post Office Ltd. That is almost like a solicitor representing a client in a police station regarding criminal proceedings for serious offences—there are more serious offences, but this is dishonesty; this is where reputational damage can be caused, and people cannot live with the consequences of the charges—while working for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is utterly deplorable, and I honestly do not think that I have heard of anything as bad for a very long time.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that the real difficulty in tackling such wrongful convictions will involve those who pleaded guilty? Our legal system does not provide a simple way of overturning convictions when there has been a guilty plea, and for good reasons. In this case, however, there may be reasons for that to be looked at. That will be the thorniest problem for the Minister.
Karl Turner
My hon. Friend is spot on. There are major problems in that regard, though I am very hopeful. However, I do not want to interfere with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the hearing that is bound to come for those individuals whose convictions will be considered by the Court of Appeal.
I suppose my point is that Janet Skinner should never have been prosecuted in the first place. She should never have been led, off the record, to falsely account. When her system was not balancing at the end of the day, she rang the Post Office to say, “What do I do?”. Off the record, the Post Office said, “Well, just make something up.” There is never a paper trail of that advice being given.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Although I will hopefully make my speech in a little while, I will first make a point that the Chamber might appreciate, based on sub-postmasters’ evidence to me about how they got into the position of being forced to admit guilt due to false accounting. The system did not balance when they came to close down at the end of the day. They knew they had not done anything wrong, so they looked for the fault and checked the stock for a compensating error, by which time the helpline to the Post Office was closed. Under the contract that those sub-postmasters had signed—a very onerous contract that was slanted in favour of the Post Office—they could not open their post office the following morning unless they closed off the books that night. That left them thinking, “It will be all right in the morning; I will find the fault tomorrow.” In that moment of closing off, they were guilty of false accounting—something that was held over them all the way through the process with the Post Office.
Karl Turner
From a legal perspective, false accounting is not a strict liability offence, so there is an opportunity to defend against that allegation. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that those sub-postmasters were put into a position where they could do nothing but make those false accounts. That is why I think this is the most disgusting example of predatory capitalism that I have ever come across. I say that because Post Office Ltd, along with Fujitsu, invested £1 billion in that IT system. I suspect that senior people within Post Office Ltd were desperate to maintain the reputation of the Post Office, but also, sadly, to maintain their own reputation as senior people within that business. I think people misled from the very outset.
I have read many judgments, both while practising in criminal cases and since that time, and I have never read a judgment as damning as that of Mr Justice Fraser. For that, I pay huge tribute to him. I do not know Mr Justice Fraser, but I know that his practice was technical—in the areas of engineering and technology—and it is clear from his understanding and grasp of that case that he knew exactly what was happening. I think that evidence given in that hearing was tantamount to perverting the course of justice, which I suspect is why Mr Justice Fraser has referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, for him to consider. Honestly, this is utterly deplorable.
Of course, people will say, “Those victims can rely on civil litigation to bring an action for malicious prosecution,” but what sub-postmaster has £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 spare when their careers have been ruined and every penny they had amassed in savings has gone to pay off the Post Office—money that they did not actually owe?
Philip Dunne
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point based on his experience of the law, but I ask him to comment on the corporate governance aspect. He has touched on corporate responsibility; does he not, as I do, find this utterly astonishing given the volume of similar allegations being made right across the country? It is not as though this were isolated to a geographic area or particular type of sub-postmaster; it was happening right across the country. Any corporate directorship or management scheme worth its salt would have identified that there was a fundamental problem and sought to find the root cause of it, rather than immediately reach for their solicitors’ letters.
Karl Turner
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: alarm bells must have been ringing. I am not saying that my legal advice at the time was bad advice; I think it was perfectly good, considering the weight of the evidence and the instructions I was receiving. However, somewhere in the Post Office, someone must have been saying, “Hang on a minute. We get maybe two or three allegations of wrongdoing per month or year”—I do not know what the figures might be—“but all of a sudden, we have 550 thieving, dishonest sub-postmasters who have never had so much as a parking ticket in their lives,” as Janet Skinner said to me. It is utterly deplorable.
For me, the alarm bell rang in 2015 when “Panorama” did its documentary, which was chilling. My blood ran cold, because I had to remind myself what advice I had given and check with myself whether everything had been absolutely right in that regard. Since I have been involved with this matter, I have been contacted by a sub-postmaster who got the opportunity to not be prosecuted by paying the Post Office back; he had to sell his house to do so. He has made the important point that the only people he could turn to were those in the National Federation of SubPostmasters.
That sub-postmaster agreed to do an interview in a spare bedroom of his own home. He says in his email that he was shocked to witness the investigating officer, when speaking with the NFSP representative, telling him to “fucking shut up”. At the time, he thought for that reason that the NFSP representative was on his side, but he now thinks that it was all a scam—that the representative was pretending to be interested, to be befriending him, and to be representing him in that interview.
Karl Turner
Thank you, Mr McCabe; I will finish now. That sub-postmaster is now wondering whether what he experienced was all part of the scam. Given what has now been found in these proceedings, I wonder that as well.
People have to be compensated properly. Lawyers must be paid. This was an incredibly costly litigation—a David and Goliath situation in which people needed to make representations in proceedings before courts. The Government must step in immediately, pay the legal costs on behalf of those victims, and get them the money they so desperately deserve.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I am going to have to impose a six-minute limit on speeches if we are to get everybody else in.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing the debate. I will keep my offering reasonably brief, because I hope to speak in greater detail during the Backbench Business debate on Thursday 19 March.
It is worth reminding Members present of the points I made in this very Chamber during a debate in December 2014. They are credible evidence that the Post Office knew about the flaws in the Horizon system throughout the whole time it was prosecuting sub-postmasters, and that it tried to suppress evidence and the investigation that we, as a group of MPs with the help of Second Sight, were running into the activities and efficacy of the Horizon system. They illustrate why these convictions are unsafe and should be quashed.
This whole issue first came to my attention because of the plight of one of my constituents, a Mr Michael Rudkin, who for 15 years was a sub-postmaster. He had served as the most senior member on the national executive of the NFSP and as chairman of the federation’s negotiating committee, where he was responsible for negotiating with Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail Group. He is an experienced sub-postmaster who was very much on the side of the sub-postmasters. I will share his experience, because he was well aware of problems in the Horizon system.
Mr Rudkin’s story really starts on Tuesday 19 August 2008. In his official capacity as a negotiator on behalf of the sub-postmasters, he was invited to a meeting at the Fujitsu and Post Office Ltd offices in Bracknell to discuss problems with the Horizon system. When Mr Rudkin gave me this evidence, I had no doubt that he was telling the truth—he was an honest man—and a Fujitsu whistleblower has since come forward to confirm everything he said.
On his arrival that Tuesday morning, my constituent signed the visitors’ book in reception and waited for his chaperone, a Mr Martin Rolfe. Mr Rolfe took him to the second or third floor, and they entered a suite where Mr Rudkin recognised Horizon equipment on display on the benches. There was only one other person in the room, a male of approximately 30 to 35 years old, who was reluctant to engage in conversation when he realised that Mr Rudkin was a representative of the sub-postmasters. Mr Rolfe asked Mr Rudkin to follow him through a number of pass-protected security doors and down some stairs. They went down to the ground floor and entered the boiler room. Mr Rudkin states that a number of men dressed in casual office wear were standing around the doorway. They became very uncomfortable about Mr Rudkin’s presence and left.
Having entered the boiler room, Mr Rudkin instantly recognised two Horizon terminals. There were data on both screens, and an operative was sitting in front of one of them, on which the pure feed for the Horizon system came into the building. Mr Rudkin asked if what he could see were real-time data available on the system. Mr Rolfe said, “Yes. I can actually alter a bureau de change figure to demonstrate that this is live.” He was going to alter a figure on a sub-postmaster’s computer remotely. Mr Rolfe then laughed and said, “I’ll have to put it back. Otherwise, the sub-postmaster’s account will be short tonight.”
The Post Office, throughout its prosecutions, relied on what it stated in court and in evidence to the panel of MPs six or seven years ago, that there was no remote access from its headquarters to individual sub-postmasters’ computers. The moment that we established that, years ago, every single one of those convictions was unsafe and the Post Office knew it.
Mr Rudkin obviously raised his concern in 2008. He had been told the same as everyone else, that no one could access the computers remotely and any shortfall was therefore bound to be down to the sub-postmaster. When they realised who he was, he was escorted from the building very quickly. He was taken to reception and told to leave.
Mysteriously, and ominously, the next day, Wednesday 20 August 2008, a Post Office Ltd auditor, a gentleman Mr Rudkin knew, Paul Fields, arrived at Mr Rudkin’s sub-post office in Ibstock in my constituency. He proceeded to tell Mr Rudkin that his branch had a loss of £44,000—a loss that he knew existed before he had even looked at the system on Mr Rudkin’s computer.
Mr Rudkin was absolved of all knowledge of the loss by Post Office Ltd, but he was ordered to pay the money back. He paid it at a rate of £1,000 a month from his salary. As we have heard, the sub-postmaster is completely liable under the contract for all losses. As he points out, why would someone steal money from themselves when they know that they will have to pay it back?
After Mr Rudkin had paid £13,000 back to Post Office Ltd, the Post Office started proceedings against his wife for false accounting. We have heard it all before. It also applied for a confiscation order on his property and had his bank account frozen under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Mr Rudkin has since cleared all his debts to Post Office Ltd, but in the process, he has lost his business, his reputation, his position as a magistrate, some property and his good name, and he has been unable to work since. His wife was prosecuted and had to complete community service having been warned that she could face a prison sentence unless she pleaded guilty.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on her effective and efficient introduction to the debate. All parts of the United Kingdom have been affected by this utterly disgraceful scandal. Postmasters up and down the country and across in Northern Ireland have been affected. Whether our constituencies are rural or have large towns, all hon. Members know how important central post office services are to our constituents. Post offices take on an even more significant role when banks withdraw from our constituencies, so the reputation of the people in the post office is so important.
My uncle was a postmaster in Dundonald. Although, thankfully, he was not caught up in this situation, he often talked about how the system caused many people in the post office to work under an atmosphere of fear in case it did not tally and was not right. They saw what was happening to colleagues of sound reputation and how their lives were being destroyed by what was going on. The injustice done to more than 500 postmasters is all the more duplicitous given how central post offices and the standing of the workers in them are to our community.
After the judgment was made in December, my constituent Mr Graham came to me to outline the problems that he has gone through. I will not recite the details, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) has eloquently put on record one specific example, and we have heard other examples of individuals.
I salute the fortitude of the campaigners. One can imagine people putting their heads down and saying, “Let’s just hope this goes away,” but they have stood up and fought, because they have suffered a personal injustice that means that they want the matter to be put right. Their reputations have been ruined and their family’s lives have been completely disrupted, yet they have faced the injustice.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office was given prosecution powers, which meant that the prosecutions it brought did not have to go through the Crown Prosecution Service for review, as normal prosecutions would? It abused those powers, as far as I am concerned.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Member for Telford made it absolutely clear that the Post Office and the authorities should hang their heads in shame about how they acted.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked on a campaign with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was a murder conviction of four individuals called Latimer, Allen, Bell and Hegan. I had to try to find fresh factors or new evidence that would overcome a very high standard to persuade the commission to send that case to the High Court for a retrial. I found that the statements had been wrongly written, which sufficed to get the case back to court. Ultimately, three of those murder convictions were overturned on that basis.
In this case, the Post Office admitted in court that it had got it wrong. A letter from the former Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), states that the Post Office had not only “got things wrong” but “apologised” for its actions to all the postmasters. A statement from the most senior lord justice says that what the Post Office has done
“amounts to the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat”,
and that the Post Office has completely ignored reality.
According to my reading of the Criminal Cases Review Commission process, those statements alone show that there are fresh factors on the table and new evidence that was not available before. Those cases should be expedited and brought to the courts without delay. There should be a fast-track process for those people so that they can get justice at last, have their day in court, have their reputations restored to them, have some semblance of normality and have the right to say, “We were not wrong. We have faced an injustice and it must now be put right.” The earlier that happens, the better, because the fresh factors and new evidence are there and should be raised.
As the Minister knows, there is a double injustice in this case. On the one hand, the postmasters thought that they had won through the mediation process and were handed a secret solution or compensation package. But on the other hand, when it was within a hand’s grasp, like Lady Macbeth, it disappeared in front of them when they went to take it. It was no longer there. It is an atrocious set of circumstances where the lawyers have been allowed to win and the postmasters have faced a double injustice and will not get their compensation.
Some people have said that it is up to the Government to pay, but I leave that to the Government. It is up to the Post Office to pay. The Post Office put that injustice on my constituent—on our constituents. Someone is responsible here. The Government could step in and hold the line until the matter is resolved, but ultimately the Post Office should be made to pay.
Karl Turner
The Government should force the Post Office to pay. When we have a situation where lie after lie after lie has been told by Post Office Ltd, it needs to be forced by the Government to cough up and sort this out.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Member and I are on the same page. This has got to be sorted out and a payment has got to be made. Ultimately, the right person and the right corporation have to be held responsible and accountable for their actions. If individuals have done even some of the things that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire recounted to the House on behalf of his constituent—my goodness! Four or five people in the basement of that room should be taken to court and held accountable for their actions. We need to face this issue honestly and openly.
I call on the Government to have some transparency. Let the public be the judge and jury. Let us set out with transparency the amount of money that was supposed to be paid, and who is getting what of that money. If it means shaming certain people for walking away with their pockets stuffed full because they represented a case—they are entitled to their payments, but postmasters get absolutely zilch in some circumstances—that should be exposed. I hope it is exposed. I call on the Minister to ensure that we have that transparency, because of what has now happened.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I call Duncan Baker. Mr Baker, thank you for notifying me of your interests. Will you repeat the information for the record?
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for bringing this debate forward. I declare that I was a sub-postmaster for two post offices before I became an MP. I have resigned as a director of the company that runs those post offices. I have no interests anymore and none of the staff I employed were affected by this issue. My only interest is that of my constituents who are affected.
I wonder if anyone else in this room has been a sub-postmaster. It is important because, having done the job, although admittedly not every day, I have used the Horizon system. I have heard about and seen at first hand the experience of making up the losses, and I thoroughly empathise with the utterly awful situation that hundreds of innocent victims have found themselves in.
Many of the individuals who worked tirelessly running post offices were as honest and trustworthy as the day is long. They have had their careers and livelihoods wrecked. Indeed, as we have heard, people have been made bankrupt because of a flawed system that accused them of theft. As we all here agree, that is a true miscarriage of justice. People have lost their life savings; even worse than that, young women have been jailed and have struggled to rebuild their lives because of a criminal record.
I have constituents in North Norfolk who have gone through such a trauma. Their story will be similar to more than 500 other cases, each as harrowing and as appalling. I do not want to reveal the names of my constituents because they still struggle to talk about these issues.
Accused of stealing thousands, suspended from their role and then charged, one of my constituents found themselves in the Crown court and was offered a deal to plead guilty to false accounting to enable the theft charges to be dropped. Why would they accept that? This lady was a grandmother and she told me that she was not prepared to look her grandchildren in the eye and say that granny was going to jail. That is not right—we all know that. In my constituent’s case, the amount was reduced to £12,000. Interest and legal costs of a further £9,000 meant a debt of £21,000. That is lower than some of the costs we have heard about, but we should just imagine being levelled with £21,000 to pay, when it is not our fault.
Andrew Bridgen
I appreciate the experience that my hon. Friend brings to this debate. Through our investigations years ago, we discovered that the Horizon system had a suspense account in it. It was a flawless system, yet it had a suspense account, where unallocated funds ended up throughout the whole system. The surplus—and it was a surplus—ran to hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and after three years it was returned to the profit and loss account.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. Come on, Mr Bridgen. I call Duncan Baker.
Duncan Baker
To date, my constituent has had no money back, like many others. They have had no indication of when the money is coming back and we are sceptical about how much they will get back.
Financial compensation is just one issue. The mental strain and loss of earnings should also be taken extremely seriously. There is the humiliation of walking down the street and being accused of stealing, having done nothing wrong. We are a fair society and it is our responsibility to ensure that those people are paid back in full.
I totally agree that the £58 million that was put to one side will no doubt be hoovered up by lawyers. What will be left for the real victims? That is not right. The Government must intervene and force the Post Office to make good the losses that those postmasters have suffered, in full. The board of the Post Office is accountable for this fiasco. Action must be taken against it. The issue is most definitely worthy of a public inquiry to uncover the extent of the wrongdoing that has occurred. We need transparency and a fair analysis.
As far as I am concerned, the Post Office knew that Horizon had bugs, errors and defects. It was told about that and chose to ignore it. Multiple accounts of losses should ring alarm bells in any organisation, but the Post Office was more concerned with its reputation and so individuals were accused of stealing, false accounting and fraud. Their names have to be cleared. The criminal records of those jailed must be overturned.
My constituents, who cannot bring themselves to talk about this, still feel the shame of being accused and nothing will repair the damage of losing their livelihood. However, I want to say, from my personal experience of being a sub-postmaster, that the post office is an invaluable place on our dwindling high streets. It is a hub for people to go to that offers incredible services. Post office workers do an incredible job. It is hard; there are many transactions to master. They do a superb job. The people accused should be properly recompensed, supported and entirely vindicated.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), whose personal experience is welcome in today’s debate. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing the debate. She outlined the background and history to this long, complex and shameful episode, presided over by the Post Office and a Government who I believe have so far sidestepped responsibility for the hundreds of lives ruined by this scandal.
From the outset of the Post Office introducing the Horizon computer system, sub-postmasters were reporting problems. Instead of the Post Office listening to them, it took the draconian approach of terminating contracts, hounding sub-postmasters out of their businesses and pursuing prosecutions. As we have heard this afternoon, the results were charges of theft and fraud, reputational damage, loss of homes, bankruptcy, loss of life savings and, for some, the loss of their freedom. It took until December last year, when there was a judgment, for the Post Office to admit that it “made mistakes” and “got things wrong”. This was more than mistakes and getting things wrong; it ruined people’s lives.
It is an utter insult to tell my constituents who have suffered this injustice that it was simply a mistake. The Post Office’s mistakes cost Kevin Carter, who ran one of our local post offices with his wife, absolutely everything. His wife Julie noticed discrepancies in Horizon from the outset. She frequently reported concerns, but they fell on deaf ears. Being decent people, they began to use their own money to balance the books.
After continually raising concerns over several years, and with shortfalls increasing, Julie was invited to an informal disciplinary meeting. The Post Office demanded she pay back the unaccounted moneys and accused her of fraud. After remortgaging their home, Kevin and Julie were forced to pay the Post Office a total of £75,000. Julie suffers from multiple sclerosis, and the situation exacerbated her condition. She and Kevin had worked hard. They had a lovely home and employed 14 staff. Their lives have now completely changed for the worse. Kevin and Julie, like many others, never gave up. They joined the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, and an exhausted Kevin recently told me, “Quite simply, we’ve lost our family home. We’ve lost everything.” It literally cannot get worse than that.
Another constituent, Dionne Andre, bought two post offices in South Shields. After noticing discrepancies, and being a decent, honest person, she too started using her own money to try to put things right. Accused of fraud after the Post Office lost a recording of a disciplinary meeting with her, she was told, “Pay up, or we’re sending you to prison.” Dionne paid £70,000, but she was never told by the Post Office whether it had dropped the fraud case against her, so she continued to live in constant fear of being arrested. She was then told by the Post Office that she had to resign. She was forced to sell her business at a £50,000 loss and the Post Office prevented her from selling her second business, for which she had paid a quarter of a million pounds. She lost absolutely everything. Dionne is now in her 40s, but she had a promising future back in her early 30s. She told me that her working life has now gone, and it has taken years for her to try to build it back up.
Anyone who has ever had to fight for justice over a number of years, in order to clear their name when they are losing everything, will know that it can take its toll, physically and mentally. The reputational damage and utter shame, for something that they know they were not responsible for, will stay with them forever. I think we can all agree that mud always sticks, yet the people responsible are doing just fine. That is why nothing less than an independent, judge-led inquiry into this miscarriage of justice will do.
After legal costs, the damages payouts awarded will amount to only about £10 million for 550 people. In short, they are never going to get back the money they lost. For those wrongly convicted, their criminal record remains. Although some of these cases are being reviewed, they should all be reviewed. It is not good enough for successive Ministers to wash their hands and repeat the mantra that the Post Office operates as a commercial independent business and they have no day-to-day control over it. Given that it is a state-owned private company, the Government have a statutory duty to be involved in the Post Office—a duty that they have abdicated.
In the other place, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Lord Callanan, recently admitted that the Government were passive in their duties on the board of the Post Office. Why did they allow the Post Office to spend phenomenal sums of money on persecuting innocent people in the courts? Why did they not speak up for sub-postmasters? More importantly, who is the Government’s representative? Surely the Government should pay up for the legal costs incurred, or at least put pressure on the Post Office to do so.
The Post Office’s sheer obstinance and obfuscation has been left unchallenged by the Government. It has been left to former sub-postmasters in the depths of despair to organise and fight for justice, but justice is still being denied. Their financial recompense is pitiful, and the lack of accountability and action against those responsible is completely woeful. The Government need to take culpability and stop abdicating their responsibility for those who are being denied justice. Given that this is not a new issue, I sincerely hope that the Minister has come prepared and can furnish us with some hope and positivity—for a change.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this important debate. I want to make it clear that the CCRC applies only to England and Wales, and the Scottish equivalent, the Scottish CCRC, has not received any applications for review but does not rule out the possibility. I will not mention all the speakers who have taken part in the debate. I will try to get through my speech as quickly as I can, so that we can give the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister more time.
The Scottish National party has called for a full independent inquiry into the Horizon system, because justice must be done. I have lost count of the number of times I have taken part in Westminster Hall debates on various aspects of the Post Office, including how Horizon has affected sub-postmasters and post office staff. The Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters have not acquitted themselves well over the issue of the Horizon accounting system—I do not normally use sarcasm in this place, but that is a sarcastic remark.
I wonder whether the Minister has listened to “File on 4” on BBC Radio 4. The harrowing effect on victims of the now discredited Horizon system, and the evidence of the Second Sight forensic accountants, is truly appalling. Post Office Ltd knew there was remote access to the system but denied that that was the case. Second Sight told Post Office Ltd of its concerns, but they were ignored. It is no wonder that the whole situation spiralled out of control. The honourable Justice Fraser, who presided at the recent trial, clarified that the Government own the Post Office:
“I would also add that Post Office Ltd, the corporate Defendant in these proceedings, is ultimately owned by the Government, admittedly through a corporate chain and a Government Department. It therefore either is, or shares a large number of features with, a public body. That is not to say that its decisions are subject (for example) to judicial review (and that point was not argued at all, so I am not expressing any view) but it cannot be seen as entirely private and wholly commercial.”
At every turn, successive Tory Governments have refused to deal with concerns about Post Office Ltd. In one debate, the then Minister told me—I am paraphrasing—that everything was fine because Post Office Ltd was now making a profit. As the hon. Member for Telford mentioned, the Prime Minister appeared to commit to a full independent inquiry at Prime Minister’s questions last week. On Monday, however, Computer Weekly contacted No. 10 to ask explicitly whether the Prime Minister had committed to a full public inquiry and whether it would be judge-led. No. 10’s response makes it clear that a decision has not been made:
“We take the Post Office’s relationship with its postmasters very seriously and closely monitored the situation during the legal proceedings. The Post Office, under its new CEO, has since accepted it got things wrong, apologised and has said it aims to re-establish a positive relationship with postmasters. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working actively with the Post Office on this matter and will hold them to account on their progress. We are also looking into what more needs to be done.”
That does not appear to be what the Prime Minister said in the Chamber, and I would like the Minister to address that.
Post Office Ltd has spent millions trying to defend itself in the Horizon cases and caused untold damage to many innocent people, who paid up to prevent prosecution. Some 56 cases are in the hands of the CCRC, which will start to consider them this month. It is likely that the appeals will be successful, which could allow applicants to recover damages.
The hands-off approach taken by Tory Governments to Post Office Ltd could end up costing taxpayers even more millions of pounds. Indeed it should, because the Government should look to support the victims of the scandal, who should not be out of pocket for the financial harm they have suffered.
Andrew Bridgen
What is the hon. Lady’s view of the situation for sub-postmasters who were coerced into pleading guilty? What should they get in response?
Marion Fellows
I see them as being as much victims of the Horizon scandal as any person who was taken to court, and they should be financially compensated. This is a national scandal, and the biggest involving IT in the public domain so far.
At the heart of the issue is the UK Government’s laissez-faire attitude. They refuse time and again to intervene despite being the special shareholder. The UK Government must take action to ensure that it does not happen again and that sub-postmasters and post office staff are supported and financially compensated. The UK Government can no longer sit on their hands. They must launch an independent investigation and ensure that such miscarriages of justice never happen again.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this important debate.
This extremely serious matter has raised worrying questions about the management and governance structures of Post Office Ltd and the way in which the Government oversee it as a public body. I pay tribute to the many sub-postmasters who have endured the harsh realities of this national scandal. Among them is Alan Bates, who has spearheaded the litigation that ultimately saw sub-postmasters get some of the vindication they deserved. Like Mr Bates, I know that the successful litigation was the first step towards achieving justice. I also pay tribute to journalist Nick Wallis, who has followed the case from the beginning and has been a passionate champion for the sub-postmasters’ cause over many years.
This debate relates specifically to the review of criminal cases, so I am disappointed that the Ministry of Justice is not responding to it. Will the Minister explain why it is a BEIS representative who is responding, when the topic of the debate was intended to fall under the brief of the Ministry of Justice?
The wrongful conviction of sub-postmasters has had an impact on the lives of far too many individuals and their families. People have lost their livelihoods, had their businesses stolen from them and, in many cases, been ostracised from their communities. For those affected, that has been a living nightmare.
One young woman began her career as a sub-postmaster at the age of 18, but after prosecution and conviction she has faced unemployment and financial ruin at a time when her adult life and independence should have begun. Another sub-postmaster whose life was turned upside down was bankrupted by legal fees and shunned by the community he had so diligently served. His neighbours would not speak to him, and his daughter was spat at on the bus to school. In one of the most tragic examples, one sub-postmaster took their own life, such was the shame, anxiety and stress that the Post Office’s heavy-handed pursuit of them brought on. Sub-postmasters who were implicated in Horizon’s IT failures have been wrongly labelled as criminals, had their lives turned upside down and, in some cases, faced decades of debt and social disgrace.
On 11 December, while we were all busy with our election campaigns, the sub-postmasters’ fight for justice took a huge step forward. The Post Office agreed to pay a £58 million settlement to the 557 sub-postmasters who brought court action against it. Mr Justice Fraser noted in his ruling that the Post Office felt entitled to treat sub-postmasters
“in capricious or arbitrary ways which would not be unfamiliar to a mid-Victorian factory-owner.”
That falls far below the standards we would expect from one of Britain’s most recognisable and trusted institutions. Mr Justice Fraser also raised concerns about the structure of accountability within the Post Office, stating that it appeared
“to conduct itself as though it is answerable only to itself.”
That was evident in the way in which the Post Office handled its litigation; it was noted that the Post Office pursued the trial with the resources and effort of a blue-chip tech company.
It is worth remembering that litigation was brought to address the errors of a Government-owned company, which was ultimately found at fault for the vicious pursuit and prosecution of hundreds of sub-postmasters. The Post Office is a Government-owned company. A civil servant sits on the board and its only shareholder is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so more should have been done to address the scandal before it was allowed to fester to this extent.
In the light of the number of wrongful convictions, a group expungement of the criminal records of those convicted seems the most suitable way forward. Unfortunately, the Post Office has resisted that idea and would prefer each sub-postmaster to bring their own legal action to overturn their conviction. That is completely outrageous. People who have lived for many years through the scandal and lost everything, including their savings and reputations, are now being asked to go back to court to give their own evidence, despite Mr Justice Fraser’s finding that the Horizon computer system by Fujitsu was at fault. The Post Office was alerted to those faults many years ago, so it should not have any illusions about the system’s effectiveness.
It is striking that the Post Office seems to have learned nothing from the unnecessary prosecutions of 557 hard-working sub-postmasters or from the huge amount of anger expressed by judges, parliamentarians and the public. Instead, it forges ahead as though it has done nothing wrong. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to move towards overturning, quickly and fairly, the convictions of the sub-postmasters affected by Horizon.
Serious questions need to be answered about the relationship between the company and the Government. The Government have been content to parrot the Post Office’s line throughout the process, claiming that the December settlement was the end of the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth for the people who are still fighting for justice.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on post offices and has long been an advocate on this issue, is making a powerful case. Does she agree that, although the scandal is outrageous and should never have happened, the Government and Select Committee investigations need to follow the money? People lost their livelihoods to pay that money back, so where did it go? Where was the shortfall? Somewhere, there are bulks of money that obviously went to the Post Office, which should use it to pay the legal fees as part of the compensation.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend makes a key point. People have paid money, so where is it? That must be at the heart of any investigation.
Unfortunately, fundamental corporate change within the Post Office seems a long way off, given the close relationship between both current and previous Post Office officials and the Government. The Post Office is being allowed to mark its own homework, meaning that a culture of denial is likely to persist. Could the Minister explain why Paula Vennells, the former chief executive of the Post Office, whom Judge Fraser noted was practising
“the 21st-century equivalent of maintaining the earth is flat”,
serves in the Cabinet Office?
The management and governance of the Post Office were severely criticised by the judges, so I raised the issue with the previous Minister. Will the new Minister call for a full review of the governance and management and of the relationship between the two? Furthermore, will he look closely at the way in which the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which is fully paid and resourced by the Post Office, has acted throughout the affair?
It is important that the taxpayer is not left to foot the bill for mistakes made by management. In December 2019, BEIS paid the Post Office £50 million as a network subsidy payment to cover the operating costs for the network. Will the Minister assure us that not a penny of that public money will be used to fund the December 2019 settlement or any future litigation?
The consistent failings of the Post Office, spanning more than two decades, have caused immeasurable damage to hundreds of lives. Only now is the full picture beginning to emerge. I welcome the commitment from the Prime Minister for a full public inquiry into the issue. I have already written to ask him to confirm that that is the case, and to give me timescales. Unsurprisingly, I have not received a letter back to that effect.
The convictions we have discussed today, however, must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The Post Office and the Government must wake up and use every influence to ensure that the seriousness of the situation is realised. I hope this debate is one step in helping to move this process along. We must secure an independent, judge-led inquiry to quash the convictions, to pay up what the convicted have lost and, most of all, to clear the names of those hard-working decent people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this important debate about the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s review of the convictions. As we heard, there has been a lot of human cost to what has happened over the past few years, and as the new Post Office Minister, I will dedicate my time to ensuring that we can see this through, keeping the Post Office on its toes, so that we come to a proper conclusion that means something to the postmasters who have suffered in the past. We also want to give confidence to the postmasters of the future about their ability to work in the network.
I am responding to the debate, rather than a Justice Minister, because, as I suspected, the debate has widened beyond the CCRC part of the situation. I hope to respond more fully to those wider points.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked what hope we can give to the victims about timescales. That will obviously depend on the complexity of each case so, yes, although we want to get this dealt with as soon as possible—it has without doubt been going on a long time—just having a tick-box approach would not be fair on those postmasters or give the answers that we need to move forward.
Lucy Allan
Does the Minister agree that the convictions should be treated as a group? They should be overturned as a group, with a common theme, rather than individually, case by case, which would make it a much longer process.
Paul Scully
I will come back to my hon. Friend’s point in a little more detail, but the way in which our legal system works means that, at the moment, we cannot do that. The CCRC can analyse the cases that come before it as a group, and it still needs to do a lot of forensic accounting, but the Court of Appeal can only deal with each case individually. The legal structures that we have at the moment prevent just one single hearing with a view to taking on board all the people who have gone through this process.
Paul Scully
I will give way briefly—the hon. Lady must be quick, or I will not cover things.
Maria Eagle
Will the Minister undertake that the Government will take steps to ensure that those who pleaded guilty will have a chance to have their convictions overturned, because that normally would not be the case?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was going to cover it because, as she said, ordinarily those who had pleaded guilty would not be able to do that in the system. The whole point about the CCRC system is that we can allow those people who were found guilty to have their cases reviewed—among the cases that went through, 46 people did indeed plead guilty. I can assure her about that.
Clearly, a lot of the speech I have in front of me talks about the post office network and how important it is for this country and our communities but, begging the House’s forbearance, we do not need me to cover that. We all know what a great job that post offices do for our communities and, therefore, what a great job postmasters do for our communities, so I will stick to the questions that have been asked and where we will go.
The Post Office has accepted that it got things wrong—it clearly did, and we have heard that in stark measure today. I am pleased that on 11 December we had a comprehensive resolution to the litigation, following several days of challenging and ultimately successful mediation, but there is an ongoing process. Some Members talked about the settlement, and clearly a number of people who had shortfalls in the past were not part of that group litigation, so there will be an ongoing process that the Post Office will announce shortly. I hope that some of the other cases will be able to be raised in that.
We heard about the financial and emotional suffering that impacted postmasters over so many years. Settling the long-running litigation, therefore, is so important. The Government will challenge the Post Office and its new chief executive proactively. I will ensure that happens.
Paul Scully
I will not just at the minute, because I want to make some progress.
I spoke to Nick Read, the new CEO, and what I found refreshing about that conversation was that this guy had been chief executive of Nisa, the association of independent supermarkets, so he already gets the relationship, the fact that he is working with people who own individual independent shops. They were self-employed people, so that relationship is similar in some ways to the Post Office relationship with sub-postmasters. Rather than treating them as de facto employees, he understands the nature of their micro-businesses within the wider network.
Karl Turner
Given that the Minister had an opportunity to speak to the new chief executive, I wonder whether the Minister and indeed the new chief executive of Post Office Ltd support an independent, judge-led inquiry. The Government need to support that, as does the Post Office.
Paul Scully
We will certainly look at how we can keep the Post Office on its toes in future and at how to look back to learn the lessons—
Paul Scully
I will not for now, because I must give my hon. Friend the Member for Telford a minute at the end.
I do not want to step on the toes of the CCRC’s investigation or of the things that are happening at the moment. Clearly, however, we need to ensure that lessons are learned. Over the coming days, we will look to see what more we can do.
I want to cover the CCRC cases specifically. The litigation that concluded with a judgment on 16 December last year only resolved the civil case—it cannot deal with criminal matters. Claimants with convictions are therefore seeking to have those convictions overturned by going through a process with the CCRC, which has the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. The independent CCRC plays a vital and valuable role in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. It is important to pay tribute to it for its process. The key role of the commission is to investigate cases in which people have been convicted and have unsuccessfully appealed, but believe that they have been wrongly convicted or incorrectly sentenced.
The CCRC received 57 applications, all of which are being reviewed—the first 20 in 2015 and the most recent 22 following the settlement in the civil case in December 2019. A small number of those applicants pleaded guilty at the magistrates court and, normally, they would have no ordinary route of appeal, but the CCRC provides a way to ensure that we can go through those cases. The CCRC has a team of three case review managers working on the cases, supported by a group leader, a commissioner and other advisory staff. They have obtained and are reviewing thousands of pages of material from the Post Office and other public bodies, and expert forensic accountants have been instructed, with the substantial task of examining transaction data from a sample branch.
Gill Furniss
I fear that the Minister does not get it. He is still parroting exactly what has been said by previous Ministers to me. If this had happened to him, and he had lost everything and had his reputation done, he would want an independent judge-led inquiry. In this Chamber, we have all made it very clear that that must be the outcome.
Paul Scully
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but she used up a lot of my time. Specifically, we are talking about the CCRC. I want to ensure that I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Telford some seconds at the end. I will continue to look at that. We will continue to ensure that sub-postmasters can feel that they will have justice, recompense and the confidence to move forward.
Lucy Allan
I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I am truly grateful for the level of support and passion that we have heard across the House and across the country. We have to recognise that this was a unique set of circumstances that deserves a unique remedy. There is no point hiding behind the CCRC not having a mechanism; we must give the CCRC a mechanism—we must invent a mechanism to deal with this, because it is so unique. People have suffered, and they will go on suffering if we do not do something about it. I urge the Minister, please reread Justice Fraser’s judgment—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Eating Disorders Awareness Week
(4 years, 9 months 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
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. May I say how glad I am to have secured this debate during Eating Disorders Awareness Week? I am glad that we have the opportunity to talk about how people acquire eating disorders and how they can, or should, be able to get the help they need.
Let me place on record my thanks to all the people and organisations who helped me to prepare for this debate. It is a long list, so I hope hon. Members will bear with me, because they deserve to be highlighted: Sandie Atkinson from Diabetics with Eating Disorders, Beat Eating Disorders, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychoanalytic Council, the Musicians’ Union, Equity the acting union, the British Dietetic Association, Professor Khalida Ismail of King’s College, London, Hope Virgo of the Dump the Scales campaign, the Priory Group, the House of Commons Library, which has produced a really good briefing, as always, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which has also provided a briefing, and Julia Tyson.
Some 1.25 million people are living with an eating disorder, 10% of whom suffer with anorexia nervosa, and 40% with bulimia; the remainder suffer from other forms such as binge eating. Research shows that the earlier the treatment is accessed, the better the chance of recovery. The figures show that 50% recover and 30% experience some improvement. Worryingly, however, 20% remain in a chronic condition. The most common age of onset is 15 to 25, although there is growing evidence that older people are affected as well.
I want to touch on three areas: first, diabulimia, which is a form of eating disorder that many may be unaware of; secondly, the interplay between the entertainment industry and social media, and the impact they have on people’s sense of their own appearance; and thirdly, treatment.
Diabulimia is a form of eating disorder that affects thousands of people with type 1 diabetes. We cannot give an accurate figure, because of how incidents are recorded—it will show up as an eating disorder but not necessarily for somebody who has diabetes. Simply by withholding insulin, type 1 diabetics are able to attain rapid weight loss. There are, however, serious physical health consequences, and it can be fatal. I will not say too much on this topic, although I will return briefly to it later, other than that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has agreed to co-chair an inquiry into this matter with me, which we hope to commence later in the year. The right hon. Lady and I intend that the inquiry will raise awareness of diabulimia and look at evidence of what practical steps can be taken to improve the treatments available.
The relationship between the entertainment industry and eating disorders is complex but real. It has been described as a vicious circle, whereby some musicians and actors are put under pressure to look a certain way. In many well-documented cases they subject themselves to eating habits that, as they see it, enable them to achieve that appearance. However, that is not without consequence for their mental and physical wellbeing.
Let me explain what I mean. The actress and Equity activist Jean Rogers has drawn my attention to the work of Dr Sara Reimers of Royal Holloway, University of London, on aesthetic labour, which is defined as
“the employment of workers with desired corporeal dispositions”
whereby
“employers intentionally use the embodied attributes and capacities of employees as a source of competitive advantage.”
That work formed the basis of the “Making an Appearance” research she conducted with the Equity women’s committee.
Maureen Beattie, the president of Equity, has given an account of her own eating disorder as an actress, which she struggled with from the age of 14 to 30. She said:
“When I was at drama school I found the mixed messages I received very confusing—on the one hand I was told I was a big, fat lump of a girl and on the other hand was always cast in leading lady roles which required elegance and charm and attractiveness. There was a lot of pressure on me to lose weight, but the more the staff (and my parents who were both in the entertainment industry) lectured me about my weight the more I needed to eat. I ate so much I sometimes felt like I had been drugged. I realise now I was protecting myself”.
She says that the pressure of acting contributes to eating disorders:
“The feeling of being an object to be pushed and pulled and commented on and criticised and laughed at by the public is very real to many people.”
Recently, on “Desert Island Discs”, Melanie Chisholm, the former Spice Girl Mel C, said:
“I was described as the plain one at the back…I ended up making myself really ill. I was anorexic for a few years. I was exercising obsessively, and I ended up being incredibly depressed. I was in denial.”
After being diagnosed, she described going from anorexia
“to having a binge-eating disorder”.
Tellingly, she concluded that her
“appearance began to change, which was the biggest fear”.
In the documentary “Miss Americana”, the hugely successful international singer Taylor Swift talked about how, as an 18-year-old, she was portrayed on the cover of a magazine. She said:
“The headline was ‘Pregnant at 18?’ and it was because I had worn something that made my lower stomach look not flat. So, I just registered that as a punishment”.
Consequently, she said of her performances that she
“thought I was supposed to feel like I was going to pass out at the end of a show, or in the middle of it”.
It is not only young women who are affected by eating disorders—the singer Sam Smith has talked about starving for weeks to prepare for photoshoots.
A 2016 Credos survey of 1,000 boys aged between eight and 18—“Picture of Health?”—found that 55% would consider changing their diet to look better. Interestingly, the survey also found that respondents felt under pressure from other factors to look good, with 68% citing friends, 58% social media, 53% advertising, and 49% celebrities.
Another disturbing aspect is how a performer’s body shape is changed digitally. Victoria Hesketh, who performs under the name Little Boots, has drawn attention to the use of photoshopping to alter the appearance of artists, citing the case of the singer Meghan Trainor, herself a campaigner on the misuse of body image, whose 2016 video “Me Too” had been digitally manipulated to reduce her waist size without her express consent. Ms Hesketh commented in an article in The Independent:
“This stuff is nothing new, but I’m not sure if people really realise the extent to which image manipulation really matters, especially in pop music videos and even more so with female artists.”
She continued:
“I remember a music video director once telling me”—
this is really shocking—
“‘You should have seen Beyoncé’s ass before we got in the edit’.”
Let us think about the implications of what the editor in those circumstance thought was his responsibility. It is quite frightening.
In 2011, as part of their “Pretty as a picture” project, Jo Rigby and the advertising think-tank Credos commissioned Panelbase to conduct an online survey of 1,000 girls and young women aged between 10 and 21. Since that time, the fashion industry has become significantly more sensitive about body shape for models, which is to be welcomed. The survey found that 53% of young women took
“inspiration from adverts for their appearance”,
and that 37% wanted to
“look like models they see in adverts”,
even though 85% of them
“recognise that...images in advertising have been altered using airbrushing.”
Worryingly, about half of the young women involved admitted:
“Seeing adverts using thin models makes me want to diet/lose weight/feel more conscious of the way I look.”
On the issue of social media, Girlguiding UK’s “Girls’ Attitudes Survey 2019” concluded:
“Girls and young women say they’re aware of the difference between real life and what they see represented online and in the media. Almost half of girls regularly remind themselves that social media is not a real reflection of others’ lives. One solution may be making sure airbrushed pictures are always labelled as such, with over half of girls agreeing to this. Nearly half of girls agreed there should be a more diverse range of people on screen too.”
My point in citing those examples is to make a connection between what we see and the reality of young people trying to emulate the stars that they see as role models, which I described earlier as being a vicious circle.
Another pressure turbocharges this phenomenon—namely, the way in which social media can serve as a means of shaming people about their appearance. I confess that I find that to be an ethical minefield. In an open society, we rightly defend the principle of freedom of speech, but when that freedom normalises abuse and shaming, the platforms and the individuals who use them surely have to take responsibility for what is said and the potential consequences. What might seem a bit of fun can very easily have devastating consequences when it targets people in such a way as to drive them towards eating disorders.
In last week’s New Statesman, Amelia Tait wrote about personal responsibility for those who engage with social media. She stated:
“It’s not up to algorithms to change our behaviour, it’s up to us. We have to stop celebrating cruelty with our clicks, and instead make a conscious effort to reward people who are kind to others or people who call out poor behaviour when they see it.”
Social media platforms need to recognise how they can profoundly affect people’s mental health and behaviour. Either they accept that responsibility or, sooner rather than later, they will have to be regulated to do so. We all have an important role to play through the language we use. When we say things such as, “You need to grow a thicker layer of skin”, or “Get a grip”, that is not helpful. The effort required to tackle an eating disorder of any description is profound and massive. Simply telling people to “get a grip” does no good at all.
I said earlier that I am indebted to the charity Beat, among others, for its help in preparing for this debate. Its key policy suggestions are based on the current treatment available for adults, treatment for young people, medical training and research funding. My constituent Emily helps raise funds for Beat and has organised sponsored walks with her family and friends, which I have been pleased to support and I am probably healthier for having taken part.
Beat has pointed out:
“Adults with eating disorders in England face a postcode lottery”
in trying to access treatment. Only 26% of adult patients commenced treatment at a specialist service within four weeks of being referred. The average wait is nine weeks. In some clinical commissioning groups, adults are first referred to a non-specialist health service or to a panel for approval before being referred to a specialist service. That inevitably creates delays, which in some cases can have tragic consequences.
Beat and the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggest that a funded access waiting time standard should be introduced for all adults with eating disorders in England. An access and waiting time standard has already been introduced for the treatment of young people with eating disorders. By 2020-21, it is hoped that 95% of children and young people will commence treatment approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence within one week of referral for urgent cases and within four weeks for less urgent ones. The most up-to-date information across clinical commissioning groups, however, shows that the rate for meeting the urgent referral target varies between 22% at worst and 100% at best. Beat is calling for the access and waiting time standard for children and young people with an eating disorder to be met in every area across England.
A further concern raised by Beat is that eating disorders are not sufficiently covered during medical training. On average, medical schools spend less than two hours teaching about eating disorders. One in five provide no training at all, and many do not even include a question on eating disorders in their final exams. As one fourth-year medical student put it:
“We don’t get any clinical skills experience.”
For those reasons, Beat recommends:
“Eating disorders are appropriately taught and assessed at all medical schools”,
and that all junior doctors in the UK
“gain...clinical experience during their foundation training.”
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has called on the Government to double the number of medical school places in order to provide the specialists needed to help people with eating disorders. I echo that call.
Beat’s final point relates to research funding. Given that the broader category of mental health accounts for 23% of NHS activity in 2018-19, 10% of the Department of Health’s research funding goes to mental health research, with just 0.09% devoted to eating disorders. That amounts to 96p per sufferer, compared with £228 per person spent on vital cancer research that has led to survival rates for cancer doubling over the past 40 years. I mention that not to suggest that too much money is being spent on cancer research, but because it shows that if more money is put into research, results follow. Beat is calling for a “significant increase” in funding for research into eating disorders.
Hope Virgo of the Dump the Scales campaign last week launched the z-cards campaign, a guidance resource for those with eating disorders and those supporting them. It has the timely and important aim
“to raise awareness of eating disorders”
and provide
“an educational piece for all frontline staff.”
Dump the Scales is asking the Government to recommit to NICE guidance 1.2.8:
“Do not use single measures such as BMI or duration of illness to determine whether to offer treatment for an eating disorder.”
The Royal College of Psychiatrists makes the same point. Hope Virgo is also calling for support for the roll-out of the z-card, training for GPs on eating disorders, and the development of a meaningful way of measuring the implementation of the guidelines, together with an annual implementation review.
I want to deal with the question of the best form of treatment for eating disorders. I have spoken to many people who have experienced them, and some believe that long-term residential treatment, sometimes including cognitive behavioural therapy, has been beneficial. There is, however, no consensus about cognitive behavioural therapy. Some experienced psychiatric specialists argue that although it may be a short-term way of dealing with the immediate problem it is not necessarily a long-term solution, in that it does not address the underlying cause of the disorder. I do not intend to draw any conclusions on that difference of professional opinion because, frankly, I do not feel equipped to do so, but I will refer back to the matter shortly. Some treatments at private healthcare facilities have been cited as having a positive effect on people’s eating disorders. However, such treatment can be very expensive and is usually beyond the means of most sufferers and their families.
Sandie Atkinson of Diabetics with Eating Disorders has said that there is still a desperate need to make insulin omission for weight loss, also known as diabulimia, a diagnosable condition. DWED supports the use of “type 1 eating disordered”, or T1ED, as an umbrella term for all disordered eating occurring in type 1 diabetes. The diagnosis would include subcategories for anorexia, bulimia and diabulimia, as insulin omission can occur separately or alongside other eating disorder symptoms.
I have a number of questions I want to address to the Minister, although I do not necessarily expect answers to all of them today. First, will she give careful consideration to the suggestions that DWED, Beat, and Dump the Scales have made about eating disorders, and will she undertake to respond in some form of written statement when she has had the opportunity to look at them more carefully? Secondly, will she undertake a review of the long-term effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy to assess its efficacy for treating eating disorders? Thirdly, will she undertake to meet representative bodies of the entertainment industry, Equity and the Musicians’ Union, to discuss the relationship between the promotion of a certain type of body image and the way in which it can affect young people? Finally, will she hold a similar meeting with social media providers to discuss what more they should do to prevent their platforms from enabling abusive behaviour, which shames some young people into acquiring eating disorders?
I hope we can agree that the issue of eating disorders is in need of urgent attention, not least because of the serious implications it has for the health and wellbeing of so many people and their families.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). I call him my right hon. Friend because I have been working with him on diabulimia. He has huge expertise in the area and I am rather new to the field. I shall be brief.
We are all occasionally touched by surgery cases we get, and about 10 months ago a couple came to see me whose daughter had recently taken her life after a long battle with diabulimia. It is terribly distressing to talk to parents who have lost a child to suicide, and perhaps even more so given the terrible background to that suicide—although all suicides are to be mourned equally. The Minister has been fantastic. I have been in correspondence with her about the case, and about diabulimia.
For the record, I shall give a quick overview of what led to the tragedy of a young woman aged 27, who was a teacher, taking her own life. She had suffered with eating disorders for a number of years and was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. As her parents said, she became giddy with joy. This is not a normal reaction when someone is diagnosed with diabetes. She was giddy with joy because she realised that as a sufferer of diabetes, she could suppress her weight through insulin abuse. In her parents’ words, the prescribing of insulin weaponised her eating disorder.
The concern that I and the young woman’s parents have, which I have raised with the Minister, is that too many healthcare professionals are unsighted in this area. When they prescribe insulin to an adolescent female or young woman, they are not alive to the risk that there may be an undiagnosed or undeclared eating disorder, or an underlying risk of an eating disorder, and that what is actually happening is that someone with a severe condition, or a propensity to a severe condition, is being handed a toxic substance that might save their life in one way but lead to the loss of it in another. There is a need for really strong background discussions with young women and girls when they are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes about their mental wellbeing and whether there is any danger of an eating disorder being present.
I have taken the case up with the Minister and I pay tribute to her. She is aware that the NHS is currently piloting services joining up treatment for diabetes and for eating disorders in London and on the south coast. Our most recent correspondence was last summer and I hope that, if not today, at some stage the Government will be able to update the House as to the success of the pilots and whether they will lead to a wider roll-out.
As the Minister said in her letter, the pilots will provide a valuable insight into the impact insulin prescribing has on individuals at risk of developing eating disorders, and they are an important step forward in recognising and treating diabulimia and minimising its devastating impact on patients and their families. That is exactly what we want to hear from the Department of Health, and I congratulate it on recognising the scale of the problem. The Minister went on to say that raising awareness among health professionals and alerting them to the risk associated with insulin and eating disorders is one of the Government’s priorities.
The debate is hugely timely. I hope that further measures will emerge from it across the NHS—across GP and mental health surgeries—that contribute to ensuring that no families have to lose a child in the way my constituents did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) for bringing the debate forward. I am pleased to participate in it. I, too, have had constituents who have had eating disorders over the years, so this is an opportunity to highlight those issues and look to the Minister for a positive response—no doubt we will get one. It is good to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), and I thank him for his contribution. Until the right hon. Member for Knowsley told me about it some time ago, I was not aware of the issue of eating disorders among people with diabetes.
It is good to have the opportunity to speak about eating disorders, which are serious mental illnesses that deserve to be dealt with in that vein. My interest in the issue came from sitting with a friend of mine—a father who was at his wits’ end trying to get his daughter, who was suffering from an eating disorder, the help she needed. That was way back when I first came here, between 2010 and 2012. He did not give up. Neither did I—and neither did the Minister responsible for health back in Northern Ireland or the Health Minister here. It was a combination of both that brought about the success that we had hoped for. The Minister in Northern Ireland managed to make changes to how things were approached there. The result of that was that we—not me, but the Minister at the time—made legislative changes and changes to the provision of in-patient care specifically for those suffering from eating disorders.
That story is very poignant. I will not mention any names, but that young lady had severe eating disorders. Unfortunately, she had hidden much of it from her parents, whom I knew extremely well; they both were in an occupation that I had a particular interest in. They had approached the Department of Health back home but had not really got the response they wanted, so I met Edwin Poots, who was Health Minister at that time. Ultimately, through our contact with him and the Health Minister here, we were able to get that young lady over from Northern Ireland, where there did not seem to be anything in place to help, to St Thomas’s Hospital just across the way from where we are now. Ultimately, the medical care it was able to offer saved that young girl’s life. It is as simple, as graphic and as honest as that. I would like to put on the record my thanks to the Minister at that time and to St Thomas’s for giving that family the treatment and help they needed.
The wonderful thing about that story—again, I will mention no names—is that that young girl is now married. She is still one of my constituents, as indeed are her mum and dad, and she has two young children. I had not seen her for a few years, but before the election I knocked her door. She came to the door looking extremely well, and she reminded me of that story. I wanted to tell it today to add to the interactions described by the hon. Member for Broxbourne and the right hon. Member for Knowsley. Things can be changed if the right measures are in place to make that happen.
I asked the Minister back in January how many people were recorded as having had eating disorders over the past five years. The answer was not straightforward. That moves us to the crux of the issue: the differing diagnostic processes. The Minister’s response read:
“The following tables show the number of people referred to specialist secondary mental health services with a primary diagnosis of eating disorders from 2014/15 to 2015/16, and the number of people referred to specialist secondary mental health services with a primary reason for referral of eating disorders from 2016/17 to 2018/19.”
The figure was 4,513 in 2014-15 and 3,895 in 2015-16. The source for those two years is the NHS Digital mental health and learning disabilities dataset. In 2016-17, the figure jumped to 11,207, and in 2017-18 it increased to 18,224. In 2018-19, there was a massive jump of more than 4,000, to 22,336.
The Minister’s answer continued:
“There are two matters to consider when looking at the MHSDS data:
Diagnosis recording is known to be low. Of the people in contact with these services on 31 October 2018, for example, a diagnosis was recorded for only 22.3% of people. Therefore, the number of people with a primary reason for referral of ‘eating disorders’ for 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 is provided, rather a count of people diagnosed with an eating disorder.”
That probably means that in 2014-15 and 2015-16 a large number of people had similar problems but were not referred. That is what the Minister acknowledged in her response. If we have a problem even counting how many people have a disorder, how on earth do we find them the help they need?
The charities that work with those struggling with their eating are a little clearer about how they work things out. The right hon. Member for Knowsley referred to Beat—I thank both it and the Library for the information they sent us—which estimates that there are some 1.25 million people in the UK with an eating disorder. That is not in any way reflected in the Government’s figure of 22,000. If it is anywhere near the truth, Beat’s figure cannot be ignored.
Beat stated:
“The most common age of onset is 15-25 years old, during a developmentally sensitive time. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and the mortality rates of the other eating disorders are also high. People with eating disorders typically develop severe physical health problems and overall quality of life has been estimated to be as low as in symptomatic coronary heart disease or severe depression.”
That demonstrates the magnitude and severity of the issue. Beat continued:
“Without early intervention, many become unable to participate in education or employment.”
Some 1.25 million people in the UK currently live with an eating disorder, while 10% of people affected by an eating disorder suffer from anorexia and 40% suffer from bulimia. The rest of sufferers, including those with binge eating disorders, fall into the “other specified feeding or eating disorders” category. There are some very complex examples of those problems.
Research suggests that the earlier treatment is sought, the better the sufferer’s chance of recovery. That is the case with almost every disease: early diagnosis always helps to address something early, solve problems and raise awareness. Some 50% of eating disorder sufferers go on to recover. That is encouraging, but it tells us that 50% continue to have problems. Only 30% improve, and 20% remain in a chronic condition; many continue to suffer way beyond their alarming early conditions. Those high figures highlight the serious issues with the availability of holistic treatment.
I wholeheartedly support the Dump the Scales campaign, which would bin the GP regulations enforcing a minimum weight or BMI before a diagnosis can be given. Indeed, I support calls for GP retraining on this issue. I am very respectful of our GPs, who are wonderful people. They do great work, but sometimes we need a better understanding of eating disorders. We should not insist on certain categories in relation to eating disorders or insist that people get on the scales. I think it is important to address that.
I am a type 2 diabetic. Whenever I go down to the doctor, he weighs me and refers to my BMI, and he tells me whether I am on the right or wrong side of it. Thank goodness, this last while I have been on the right side of it. I try to keep careful control of what I eat and how much I eat.
When a parent, a carer or a sufferer themselves realises that all is not okay with their mindset towards food, palming them off with a little leaflet or a referral—I mean this respectfully—to yoga classes, as sometimes happens, is not enough. I am not saying that yoga is not good to do—I have never done it and have no knowledge of it—but to say that that is a way to solve someone’s eating disorder is a wee bit crass, to say the least. We must get on with early diagnosis and intervention, rather than effectively saying to people, “You aren’t skinny enough yet to merit help,” because they are.
The starting point must be the first realisation that there is a problem. When the parents of the young girl I mentioned earlier realised that their daughter had a problem, they addressed it early on. A doctor has never asked me to be tired for six months before checking the iron in my blood. He carries out a test to ensure that nothing is wrong. We start at the beginning and do not waste six months to see what it is. Why must we wait until someone is dangerously underweight before we offer them help when, in some cases, that is just too late?
I am fortunate to have two granddaughters who are extremely beautiful, not like their grandfather—and they will be glad to hear that; they have their grandmother’s and mother’s good looks—but never do I want them not to see what I see when I look at them. If, God forbid, there was a problem, I would want to know that the NHS had not simply the finance but, more importantly, the understanding of how and when to intervene. That is not simply when the scales show the correct small number.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) for introducing the debate, particularly in Eating Disorders Awareness Week, on such an important issue that is often overlooked because it is hidden. He was fastidious in detailing so many of the crucial aspects of eating disorders and how our popular culture impacts on so many. I think it will go on to affect more young people as it grows under the social media stresses and pressures put on them.
I was thinking back to when I first started to think about appearances, which was probably when I was in my mid-teens, but my daughter, aged 11, is already looking on Instagram and so aware of how she looks and how many friends she has on social media. Those are not what I would call actual friendships, but these days it is all about social perception, and the pressures and stresses we put on young people through social media, which remains largely unregulated, are astronomical. We are creating a mental health catastrophe that is coming down the line for our young people. It will impact on men, who are not immune, but it impacts significantly on young women. I see that in young children of primary school age: my daughter and her friends very much relate to pictures of one another online and how they look. A societal image of perfectionism is being created that is very unhealthy for people’s mental health.
Eating Disorders Awareness Week is running this month, raising awareness of a disorder that, as has been said, affects 1.25 million people across the UK. When I worked as a psychologist in mental health services, I was aware how even then it was not a key focus in our training. Mental health professionals could benefit from much more in-depth training in eating disorders. When I was at Glasgow University, we benefited from the psychologist who came to train us having a specialist interest in the area. He is long retired and I do not know if anyone has taken his place, but training was very much dependent on individuals who had developed specialist expertise coming and lending that expertise, because those in training may not meet or have clinical experience of treating people with eating disorders unless they go on to do a specialist placement. Many of the professionals we are bringing through across the United Kingdom will not necessarily feel that they have sufficient expertise to treat eating disorders. We need to address that, particularly because, as has been said, it is not the kind of difficulty where people often come forward and say, “I have an eating disorder.” Clinicians, trying to form a picture on presentation of someone who might come with a diagnosis of depression or trauma, may notice a larger clinical picture not in the referral, but they require that expertise to pick up those symptoms early on. We know that earlier intervention creates a much better outcome for those with these conditions.
The other important issue I want to bring up is the Dump the Scales campaign, which I looked at while other hon. Members were talking. There may be more obvious signs of weight loss in individuals who present with anorexia, but those with bulimia are often bingeing and then purging, so there may not be noticeable weight loss. Such disorders can become extremely chronic before anyone picks up the symptoms. Certainly, one symptom of the disorders is denial and attributing difficulties elsewhere.
Dump the Scales is important, because my understanding is that BMI has to be at a certain level for a referral. We need to move on from that in clinical practice and look much more widely. I have just looked up the criteria in ICD-10 and, while they may have moved on, there are a number of symptoms and BMI is one of them. That needs to be considered, because, as I said, the person is not likely to come with a presentation of eating disorders in the first place and then, if some of the clinical symptoms are so stark that they cannot be referred on to appropriate services so quickly, that creates another barrier to getting the treatment they so desperately need.
Family support is another matter that we often overlook but need to focus on. We really need to get family members on board in order to have holistic treatment, particularly for young people’s mental health. It would be helpful to know more about what is being done in relation to family systems therapy and family therapy.
I was trained in the cognitive behavioural therapy model when I was practising, but it was very much a formulation-based model. I do not think eight sessions of CBT would necessarily be effective for people who have a long-standing chronic illness or perhaps other underlying issues such as trauma that need to be resolved. We need a flexible system to ensure that a person’s care pathway is at the level of service they need for the chronicity of their difficulties.
It has not passed me by that it is International Women’s Day this week, so it is apt to have this debate on eating disorders awareness, which an issue that is likely to affect so many young people—overwhelmingly women, but also men—who face this social pressure.
I will finish with a few things that the Scottish Government are trying to do. This is an area where we should share best practice and have much collaboration across the UK, and I would like to see that and be part of it. It is excellent for the way forward that an all-party parliamentary group has been reconstituted.
Last year, the Scottish Government created an online peer support tool specifically for this issue to allow young people to pair with a trained volunteer, who had themselves recovered from an eating disorder. That is important because peer-to-peer support can be extremely helpful, particularly for young people. At certain stages in life we may speak to our parents more or less readily, depending upon our stage of development, and for adolescents, among whom a higher percentage of eating disorders initially develop, peer-to-peer support will provide an excellent starting point for treatment.
The website caredscotland.co.uk is an information platform for parents and carers. We must ensure that parents and carers, who are, most often, going to be the ones who pick up the initial signs, have awareness, as well as the support they need. It is vital that parents and carers have that support because dealing with an eating disorder can take an enormous emotional toll upon an entire family. We need to look at people’s mental health in a holistic manner.
We need to do much more, right across the United Kingdom, in relation to access to treatment for those who have eating disorders. We have come some way, but we need to raise more awareness at different levels within the system. GP training has been mentioned. We also need a public awareness campaign, because often peers or families pick up the initial symptoms, and medical training for psychiatrists and those working in mental health. From my own training, I do not think those professionals have the level of training necessary to treat people in primary mental health care, which is often where an eating disorder might be picked up initially before it is referred on to secondary community mental health teams.
Jim Shannon
I am thinking about the dangers of social media and how it affects children and young people. Could the dangers of social media be made clear at an early stage, perhaps at school? The perfect body, clothes, hair and everything become things everyone wants, whereas the reality of getting them is quite different. For instance, in some photographs, models’ six packs or their weight are actually changed digitally. Social media has a lot to answer for.
Dr Cameron
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. Social media often creates a false world that none of us can ever live up to. That is why I welcome the Government’s work on social media, which is looking at potential regulation and other issues in relation to the impact on mental health.
This is an excellent pivotal debate, but it is not the finishing point. It is most definitely the starting point for taking these issues forward on a cross-party basis. I look forward to working with everyone who has an interest in this field, to support progress for those who have eating disorders across the United Kingdom.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) on securing this important and timely debate, and for the excellent way he opened it, which was very helpful. It has been a compact debate, but he covered a wide range in what he said.
I welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), particularly when he spoke about the moving case of his young constituent who took her own life, which is always sad to hear; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I agree with her about using the debate today as a starting point. There is much that we should be talking about.
As we have heard, eating disorders are serious mental illnesses that affect too many people in this country. It is estimated that there are currently 1.25 million people in the UK with an eating disorder. It is a serious issue that we should be talking about, even more so because that is only an estimate as we do not have reliable data on the prevalence of eating disorders in the UK. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about that; it is an issue that we must take forward from the debate today. It is part of a broader problem with our data on mental health conditions, although we must acknowledge that some of it comes down to the stigmatisation of eating disorders.
Eating disorders can affect people of all ages, from instances among children as young as six years old, which should alarm us, to women in their seventies. Around three quarters of people with an eating disorder are women but, as we have heard in the debate, eating disorders also affect men. We need to be careful not to stereotype when we describe people affected by eating disorders because it can deter men and young men from seeking help.
Anorexia has the highest mortality rate among all psychiatric disorders because of the severe medical complications that it can cause, but all eating disorders have an impact on the daily life of people who live with them. It is vital that eating disorder services are there to support people when they need it. It is my belief that too often people with eating disorders are being let down by our NHS, and those of us who are interested in this must take that forward from here.
Someone with an eating disorder will currently wait an average of three and a half years before receiving treatment. Too often someone goes to their GP to ask for help, but simply does not get it, as we have heard. The eating disorder charity Beat, which we have all rightly mentioned in our speeches, found that nearly one in three people who seek a referral to an eating disorder service did not get one from the first GP to whom they spoke. These delays clearly go against the NICE guidance on ensuring prompt access to specialist services, and they come with an enormous emotional toll for the person involved. The hon. Member for Broxbourne talked about where that emotional toll can take somebody. Imagine having finally built up the confidence to go and ask for help only to be told, “You won’t get to see a specialist”.
Earlier this week, I spoke to people who are now recovering or recovered from eating disorders, who told me about their struggles to get support. I thank Beat for organising that meeting with MPs. One person was told by a doctor that she weighed too much to have treatment for an eating disorder, despite weighing only 38 kg, which is less than 6 stone. Let us imagine that weight. I also heard about a doctor praising over-exercising, as if that were a good thing. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley that Mel C had the problem of obsessively exercising, which is another way people can seek to lose weight. Finally, a person was told that she needed to find the willpower just to eat. My right hon. Friend rightly criticised the attitude of underestimating the difficultly of the condition and the danger of the “just get a grip” attitude. We have to get over that and clearly it is even more damaging when it comes from clinicians.
People with bulimia have been denied treatment based on the frequency, or lack of frequency, of their bingeing and purging episodes. The continued focus on weight that we have talked about is particularly concerning as bulimia, along with other over-eating disorders, does not always lead to excessive weight loss. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about Hope Virgo, the campaigner who leads the Dump the Scales campaign. That campaign tells us that clinicians are still using measures such as BMI to assess whether someone is eligible for eating disorder treatment, as I was told by the young person I met this week.
That is another instance where NICE guidelines are not being correctly followed, meaning people are being turned down for the support they should receive. Is someone who has been told they are ineligible for help after visiting their GP really going to go back and ask again and again, until they get the help they need? Or are they going to struggle with their eating disorder, potentially deteriorating to the point where they need to be admitted to hospital?
We should emphasise that the situation is not necessarily the result of medical professionals not caring about eating disorders, but a reflection of the fact that medical schools have less than two hours’ training on eating disorders across the average medical degree. In fact, one in five medical schools do not cover eating disorders at all and, where they are covered, the subject is not in the final exam, meaning students will give it a lower priority.
We see doctors who think people cannot have an eating disorder if they have a healthy BMI, family GPs who are not confident that they should make an urgent referral to a specialist service and many doctors who have never seen a patient with an eating disorder before. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee have both recognised this and call for all doctors to receive proper training on eating disorders. The General Medical Council has said that it will engage with medical schools on the lack of training, but that is a long way from guaranteeing that all newly-qualified doctors will have basic levels of knowledge on eating disorders.
Will the Minister act as a champion for improved training on eating disorders, so that patients can see a doctor who has a basic understanding of what an eating disorder is and of how important it is that a patient sees a specialist? That would be a first step in ensuring that the NHS gives people with eating disorders the support they need. I say a first step, because even when people can secure a referral to a specialist eating disorder service, there is no guarantee that they will then get the help they need.
Colleagues have brought a number of statistics into the debate. In 2017-18, an adult referred to a specialist eating disorder service could expect to have to wait an average of nine weeks to start treatment. That is clearly not good enough. In no other area of mental health would we accept a wait of more than two months to see a specialist. The Government seem to have accepted that in the case of children and young people, where we are finally seeing the introduction of waiting time targets, but waiting time targets for adult services are still being piloted. Can the Minister tell us why that is the case and when the Government will introduce waiting time targets for adult eating disorder services, to ensure that everyone can access timely support?
Simply setting targets will not solve this problem. I am afraid we are seeing that in services for children and young people where, despite some progress since the introduction of targets, people with eating disorders still face a postcode lottery up and down the country. In my constituency, 97% of young people referred to a specialist eating disorder service are seen within a month, but if they live just yards away, across the border in Wigan, the chances of their being seen in that timeframe fall to 66%. That is not good enough. We need all areas of the country to be given the resources they need to give people with eating disorders appropriate and timely support.
Sometimes the right support can mean the person with an eating disorder getting hospital treatment, but there are only 649 specialist in-patient beds for people with eating disorders in England, and just 249 of those are for children and young people. According to NHS data, the most common age for admission to hospital for eating disorders is 13 to 15. More than 4,400 children were admitted to hospital for eating disorder treatment last year.
When their local hospital does not have enough beds, children are being sent miles away from their families for special treatment, because the NHS does not have the resources to treat them closer to their homes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley also raised the issue of the use of private healthcare companies and private hospitals; too often, in the case of beds not being available, the NHS relies on private healthcare companies to deliver the services. My concern is that many of those services have been falling well below the standards expected. Some 28 privately-run mental health units have been rated as inadequate by the Care Quality Commission in the past three years. Vulnerable people with mental health conditions deserve much better.
Another issue worth mentioning is that the available treatment does not match the length of duration of adult eating disorders, even when a patient can have treatment. Two thirds of adult eating disorders last for three years or longer, but the current NICE-recommended adult out-patient therapies span only one year, or something like 20 to 40 sessions, 30% of which will be in-patient services. Fewer than 20% recover. There is a mismatch in the resources, there is a mismatch in the number of beds and there is a mismatch in the length of time that therapies last. If we catapult somebody out of a service before they are recovered, then clearly there will be a relapse. We need more research on that, and the NHS needs more mental health beds to cope with demand.
My final point is that services also need to be properly funded. The Minister will know that for too long we have seen money intended for mental health services diverted to meet other short-term financial concerns in the NHS. Given the pressure on NHS services now that we have the coronavirus to deal with, one can see that there will be even greater pressure not to spend money on mental health, but to spend it on other services.
Until mental health funding is both increased and ring-fenced, mental health services will remain a lower priority than patching up buildings, meeting demand for physical health services or even increasing services to deal with coronavirus. If we want to see eating disorder services improve, we must do everything we can to ensure that mental health services are properly funded, starting with increasing and then ring-fencing the funding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) —my right hon. Friend, if I may call him that—on securing this important debate on eating disorders awareness during Eating Disorders Awareness Week.
This is a subject close to my heart; it is a subject that we talk about frequently over at the Department and it is on the desk. It is so important because, as I think the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned, the morbidity rates among young women suffering with eating disorders are the worst of any mental health issue. It is the most serious of all mental health issues that children and young people, and indeed adults, can suffer from. That is why it has such a high priority within the Department.
People with eating disorders often suffer in silence, but Eating Disorders Awareness Week brings this important issue out into the open and provides information and advice for those who seek help. I pay tribute to all those who are working hard to raise awareness of eating disorders, in particular the charity Beat, which hon. Members will know is supported by the Government and does so much to support young people through its helplines and support groups. I have met with Beat and I am incredibly impressed by the charity. It does incredibly good work.
We also have passionate and committed individual campaigners such as Hope Virgo, who has been mentioned a couple of times today. They are also doing much to raise the profile of eating disorders and to show people who are suffering from an eating disorder that, as hard as that is, it is possible to fight them and to get well.
As I have said, eating disorders are serious and life-threatening conditions; they can be devastating for those who are suffering, their family members and the people around them. That is why we want to ensure that people have access to the right mental health support in the right place and at the right time. Improving eating disorder services is a key priority for the Government, as I have said, and is a vital part of our work to improve mental health services. We know that the earlier an intervention is made and treatment provided, the greater the chance of recovery.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The waiting time figures for child eating disorder appointments in London show 97.1% of urgent cases being seen within one week and 92.8% of routine cases being seen within four. In my constituency, the figures are 78.6% and 78.3% in the same circumstances. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, as part of our great levelling-up agenda for this country, the young people in my community in Rother Valley and across South Yorkshire deserve the same waiting times for eating disorder services as Londoners currently enjoy?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will go on to talk about waiting times, but he is absolutely right. It is a trial that we have rolled out to ensure that, across the country, anybody who presents with a serious first instance eating disorder is seen within one week and routine cases are seen with specialist help within four weeks.[Official Report, 19 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 12MC.] That has been rolled out and tested across the country by NHS England, and I am incredibly impressed at some of the statistics that I am hearing; I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South for citing her own constituency.
This is a trial and, as we know, everybody has yet to meet the standards; that is the responsibility also of the clinical commissioning groups, because this is quite complicated.[Official Report, 19 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 12MC.] I will go on to talk about that, but I am actually impressed even with those statistics, considering what it was like before. I am pleased to hear the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) quotes for his constituency, but they do have to be, to quote a phrase, “levelled up” along with everywhere else.
We know that the earlier an intervention is made and treatment provided, the more successful it is. One of the services in our mental health profile, which is not focused on eating disorders but which I am particularly impressed with, is the trailblazer schemes that we have rolling out into schools. Staff working on the schemes can pick up young people’s eating disorders at the very first signs. Outcomes are promising if they intervene at that very first stage, because the pattern of behaviour does not become established or embedded. They can intervene very early on.
On the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, we set up the first standard to improve access to eating disorder services for children and young people to ensure that, by the end of 2021, 95% of all children and young people with an eating disorder will receive treatment within one week for urgent cases, and within four weeks for routine cases. We are on track to meet that commitment, and figures I have seen today suggest that we may be on track to meet it early, which would be fantastic.
The number of people seeking treatment for eating disorders is sadly rising—or maybe it is a good thing, because people are not so stigmatised, are aware that help is there and are seeking it. However, that rise makes even more encouraging the corresponding increase in the number of patients who actually receive the care that they need. In-patient treatment should be a last resort, which is why in 2014 the Government announced a £150-million investment to expand community-based eating disorder care. We are making good on that promise, and as a result, 70 dedicated new or extended community services are now open or in development.
Indeed, I visited one myself and met the amazing staff who work there—it takes incredible skills to work with people who suffer from eating disorders—and some of the sufferers, and saw that work taking place. People who go into these units are usually there for quite a while; it takes some time to work through this. However, the outcomes looked incredibly promising, particularly for the young women I spoke to. The fact that we have 70 of those dedicated units open now, or about to open, across the country is an incredible step forward in addressing this problem.
That has led to sufferers receiving swift access to treatment within the community, because it is important that they receive treatment near to where they live, close to their families, schools and friends, and that their treatment causes as little disruption to their lives as possible. By improving care in the community, we can improve outcomes and recovery, reduce rates of relapse and prevent eating disorders continuing into adulthood, which is really important.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way; there is nothing more aggravating than somebody coming very late to a debate, but I have been in the International Women’s Day debate all afternoon. On relapse or eating disorders continuing into adulthood, does she agree that we have made massive strides forward in treatment for young people, but that there remains a problem of transition when sufferers turn 18? For those who develop an eating disorder slightly after their teenage years, or even well into adulthood, there is still a challenge in accessing services for those not eligible for children’s services.
Ms Dorries
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why we invested £2.3 billion in mental health services, which, as I always say, is more than half the entire prison estate budget. We are focusing on young people and young women in this debate, but funding for mental health services is growing faster than the overall NHS budget. That funding and the development of community services is there to pick up exactly the cases she cites.
No mental health service, other than the very extreme, is better delivered in a hospital than in the community, whether for children, young people or adults. Despite that investment in community mental health services, our challenge is unprecedented, and our challenge is about workforce—it is about attracting people to work in this arena and to help us develop the community services that we need to provide treatment for adults and young people. That is the challenge we have taken on, and it is a challenge that we are meeting and moving forward with. It is our ambition and my absolute hope that children, young people and adults, regardless of their age—this illness is severe, whether in adults or children and young people—receive the treatment they require, when they require it.
Jim Shannon
These plans will require a close working relationship between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. I am sure that that is what the Minister refers to, but will she confirm that that is the case?
Ms Dorries
Absolutely, and the Green Paper, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware of, references the mental health of young people in schools. However, it is also about the trailblazer schemes, peer support workers and other people who go into schools who specialise in how to identify this and pick it up. Teachers have a huge job, and I think if we were to say that they needed to pick up when someone is suffering from an eating disorder, they would probably throw their hands up, because it requires specialised training. It is a skill, and it takes careful handling when identifying someone who is suffering from an eating disorder. So yes, of course we work across Departments, but it is those specialised and trained mental health workers in schools who will pick this up.
Barbara Keeley
We have a few moments left, so I refer the Minister back to the point I raised about relapse. We are largely talking about adults, and there is a mismatch between the average duration of an adult eating disorder—a large number of patients have severe and enduring illnesses—and the shortness of the therapies that they get. Professor Janet Treasure told me that a solution could be to increase the knowledge and skills of patients with those long, enduring conditions and their carers, so that they can self-manage the illness in parallel with clinical care. She is working on a pilot of that. I do not know if the Minister has heard about that, but I wanted to raise it as something that we ought to give attention to.
Ms Dorries
That is incredibly interesting. I had not heard about it, but I am sure that my officials will take note of it. We have an open door for anything that we can identify that helps us in targeting and providing services. We are looking for solutions to the problem. As I said, the money is there. Claire Murdoch, who I mention in almost every debate, and Professor Tim Kendall are rolling out mental health services across the country via NHS England. They have probably heard of it and are probably looking at it, but I am sure that we will take note and check if that is the case.
Although eating disorders are commonly first experienced by people when they are young, they can continue into adulthood. Following a report on how NHS eating disorder services were failing patients, NHS England convened a working group with Health Education England, the Department of Health and Social Care and other partners, which goes to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made. We are working in collaboration to address the report’s recommendations and to take them into account when planning for improvements to adult eating disorder services. Work is in progress on that.
We are continuing the investment in mental health services through the NHS long-term plan, as I think most people know. The £2.3 billion is with NHS England, which has a long-term plan to deliver on mental health and is moving at incredible pace. Even today, although it is not relevant to the debate, it announced the opening of gambling clinics across the UK. Community services are being rolled out across the UK so that people in mental health crises do not end up in casualty. It is an incredibly impressive roll-out of mental health services across the UK, including for eating disorders.[Official Report, 5 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 12MC.]
That long-term plan will give an additional 345,000 children access to mental health support; 380,000 adults access to psychological therapies; and 370,000 adults access to better support for severe mental illness by 2023-24. It commits to the delivery of eating disorder waiting time standards, which I have already spoken about, and I hope that we will reach those before the end of next year. The plan has also committed to the design and roll-out of a new integrated model of adult community mental health care.
To increase further the number of people seeking treatment for their eating disorder, the Government recognise that raising awareness and reducing stigma are incredibly important. Here I should come on to a few of the points made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I shall go through them backwards, because that will be more positive in terms of affirmative answers. He mentioned social media providers, their role in body image and the impact that they have on young women. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has already—this happened recently—held a roundtable with social media providers. It was an incredibly positive meeting, but that is something that needs to continue, because when it comes to social media interactors, providers and platforms need to be aware of the impact that their forums have on young women, so we are continuing that dialogue with them and, I hope, are continuing to push that point.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about the entertainment industry and its relationship and responsibilities with regard to body image. I announced two weeks ago that I am holding a roundtable with the entertainment industry. That was as a result of the death of Caroline Flack, who took her own life. For me, that was a watershed moment. It is time for the entertainment industry to be aware that it does not have a duty of care only to the people who they take on a contract to work with them. This is not just about sudden fame and reputation loss. The industry has a wider responsibility in relation to images that it projects and how it projects them, because young women and, indeed, many people absolutely are influenced by what they see—their perceived role models—through the lens of television or the cinema. The entertainment industry definitely has a responsibility, so in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I can say that I have already put that in train.
In relation to a review of the long-term effectiveness of CBT, I defer to the expertise and knowledge of our friend from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who made the point that short-term CBT may not be as effective, in terms of how it is delivered, for such long-term conditions. It may be part of the treatment, but as we know, when it comes to eating disorders, treatment is very prolonged in some cases. I am sure that CBT has a definite role, but it should not be seen in isolation. Management of eating disorders takes the input of physicians and psychologists—people who are expert in managing these conditions and working in this field. Therefore I would say yes, but not in isolation.
Dr Cameron
I thank the Minister for making that point. I think that there should very much be a formulation-driven treatment plan whereby all the issues that the person presents with are taken on board, and different aspects may require different parts of treatment. I do not think that often happens currently, particularly where people present to primary care services and perhaps do not get the specialist services that they need, but I hope the work that is being done will streamline that for the majority of people in the future.
Ms Dorries
I am sure that Claire Murdoch and Tim Kendall at NHS England are all over that and very aware of that. A streamlining approach to treatment is about getting people seen within the first week. If people are first seen within the first week when they present with their first crisis, that is the time when greater intervention can happen and when that treatment plan can be designed and put in place and there can be that entire care pathway through. I will not say that I think that that would shorten the illness, because I do not know. The hon. Lady probably knows more than I do, but I would think that an effective treatment plan with CBT and everything that is involved in that would provide a better outcome than piecemeal interventions along the way.
The right hon. Gentleman’s first point was careful consideration of Beat and so on. I am a huge admirer of Beat. It provides an incredible service. Its helpline deals with 30,000 people a year, I think, if I am not mistaken—it is a few weeks since I saw Beat. The support service that it provides, particularly to young women who are looking for someone to talk to and advice and help, is second to none. We are absolute supporters of Beat.
Let me just go on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) about diabulimia. It is also of course the point that the right hon. Member for Knowsley raised repeatedly. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that people with diabulimia receive the treatment that they need. That is why NHS England announced in February 2019 the piloting of services. The services are being piloted on the south coast and in London, and NHS England will evaluate and monitor the pilots and take the learning from them. I will raise what the results show, if the results are through yet from the pilots, and what learning there has been and how it will apply across the UK.[Official Report, 19 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 13MC.] I am sure that the officials will take a note, and when I have had that meeting, I will report back to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know exactly what the findings are and where we are going on that. The group that we are talking about is very small, but it is at the extreme end and requires very serious consideration.
I think that those are all the points that were raised and that I need to answer.
Barbara Keeley
Could I remind the Minister of another two? I think that a number of us raised the issue of training, and I asked whether she would be a champion of improving training.
Barbara Keeley
There is also the question about when waiting time targets will be introduced for adult eating disorder services.
Ms Dorries
Absolutely. On training for GPs, I take the hon. Lady’s point exactly. The NICE guidelines are incredibly clear, in terms of the Hope Virgo campaign and taking BMI, weight and other things into consideration. The NICE guidelines are clear, and it is up to the clinical commissioning groups to ensure that GPs and others do not take weight as a consideration. Tim Kendall is all over this and is working on it. We want GPs and others to abide by what are already very strict NICE guidelines. We have the guidelines; we just need the medical profession to implement them, but I had an idea when the hon. Lady asked her question. We are talking about training for GPs with the General Medical Council and we will continue to hold conversations about that, and I am sure that NHS England is doing exactly the same thing, but there are quicker ways to get information through to GPs.
When I was a nurse and I was training, it was the Nursing Times that informed us, on a weekly basis, of what was new in treatments and operative procedures. For GPs, it is Pulse and other magazines that they receive. I think that there might be a quicker way into GPs’ surgeries to alert them to the fact that the NICE guidelines are not being applied by GPs or by clinical commissioning groups. I think that there may be more inventive ways around that. Yes, training GPs absolutely is important; it is important to include this issue in the GP training programme, but in terms of getting a message through to GPs now, I think that we need to look at a more innovative way of doing that.
On money being diverted and ring-fenced, I think that the hon. Lady knows that the money from the £2.3 billion that goes to the CCGs is ring-fenced for mental health services only. They are not allowed to siphon it off and use it for anything else. We have our own queries as to whether some are doing that, and I know that NHS England, because I raised this with it the last time I met it, is doing an evaluation of clinical commissioning groups and having a look and checking that that money, which is ring-fenced, is spent only on—
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. Could I ask whether the Minister intends to give the proposer of the motion his usual two minutes to wind up the debate?
Ms Dorries
I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to talk to me at any time, knows that he can catch me anywhere. I will now give way to him.
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister and call Sir George Howarth.
Sir George Howarth
It is always a pleasure to talk to the Minister. I start by thanking everybody who took part in the debate. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) spoke movingly on behalf of his constituents. As he knows, I have met them. They are a formidable couple who are trying to turn their grief into something positive, and I applaud them for that.
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has been, along with me, ploughing this somewhat lonely furrow over many years. It is always a pleasure to have her as a combatant in the battle that we have been conducting. As ever, we saw the compassion of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is legendary—in this Chamber and elsewhere and certainly in his own constituency. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who spoke for the SNP, made a very helpful contribution, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench. I will take the Minister up on her invitation. I am very grateful to everybody for contributing to the debate.
Written Statements
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence and Security Industrial Strategy
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I want to inform the House of our work to review the UK’s defence and security industrial sectors, which will inform the broader integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy.
The UK has built up a world-leading defence and security industrial base over many decades with a broad footprint across the UK, helping our armed forces and the broader national security community to deter or defeat any threat that presents itself. At the same time, these industries make a significant contribution to our prosperity through investment, exports, skills, and research and development. The defence and security industry employs hundreds of thousands of people—including thousands of apprentices—across the breadth of the Union, from building warships in Scotland and armoured vehicles in Wales, to manufacturing aircraft in England and satellites in Northern Ireland. Our industries are also at the forefront of technology development in creating new ways to prevent and defend against terrorism and serious organised crime. And on the international stage, UK defence and security companies play a crucial role in maintaining the UK’s global influence, underpinning our strategic partnerships with key allies.
Many of the UK’s defence and security companies are flourishing, but suppliers from large companies to small and medium-sized enterprises are also now facing a range of challenges for the future. They are impacted by the pace of technological change, the need for innovation and partnership, and increased competition from abroad, alongside the difficulty of sustaining necessary skills. We need to consider how to address these challenges and maximise potential opportunities.
The integrated review will define the long-term strategic aims for our national security and foreign policy and determine the capabilities and reforms needed to meet those aims. The review of the UK’s defence and security industrial sectors will support this work by considering how to ensure the UK continues to have competitive, innovative and world-class defence and security industries that drive investment and prosperity across the Union, and that underpin our national security now and in the future.
The Ministry of Defence will lead a cross-Government team to progress this work, engaging closely with industry, Parliament, and other stakeholders over the course of the review. The House will be kept informed as work progresses.
[HCWS145]
Bovine TB
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I am updating the House on today’s publication of the Government’s response to Professor Sir Charles Godfray’s independent review of our 25-year strategy to eradicate bovine TB (bTB) in England by 2038.
BTB is one of the most difficult and intractable animal health challenges that England faces today. Around 30,000 cattle have to be slaughtered annually due to infection. Our cattle breeders suffer the loss of prize winning animals and valued herds and this loss creates considerable trauma in the farming industry.
BTB is a very difficult disease to eradicate for a number of reasons. It is a slow moving, insidious disease which is difficult to detect. The diagnostic tests that exist are not perfect; the disease can survive in the environment for several months. BTB is harboured in wildlife with badgers being a known vector. The BCG vaccine provides only limited protection and does not cure infected badgers. There is no example of a country that has successfully eradicated bTB without also addressing the presence of the disease in wildlife.
However, the United Kingdom has previously managed to turn the tide on bTB and we can do it again. In the 1930s around 40% of cattle herds suffered from bTB. A combination of cattle movement controls, testing and slaughter of infected cattle and wildlife controls through badger culling managed to bring the disease to near eradication by the early 1980s.
However, since the late 1980s, bTB has spread and the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak led to a suspension in testing and then widespread restocking of farms. This meant that in the first five years of this millennium, the disease once again spread rapidly and became our number one animal health challenge.
Our 25-year strategy to eradicate bTB published in 2014 is founded in science. It applies the lessons of our history in previous attempts to control the disease as well as evidence from other countries around the world and trial work conducted in the UK during the 1970s and, more recently, during the randomised badger culling trial conducted between 1998 and 2007.
The cornerstone of our strategy, as before, is a policy of regular testing and removal of infected cattle from herds. We have also incrementally introduced tougher restrictions on cattle movements from herds at risk of infection and more sensitive tests. We have introduced measures to encourage greater risk management and more information for the keepers of cattle. We have also deployed wildlife controls in areas where the disease is rife and we have deployed new biosecurity measures to try to break the cycle of infection between cattle and badgers.
Since the initial badger cull pilot in 2013, a policy of badger control has been rolled out in many parts of the high risk area (HRA) in the south-west and west of England. As of 2019, 57% of the HRA is now subject to a licensed cull of badgers. This policy, while difficult and inevitably contentious, is starting to yield results. The latest epidemiological analysis conducted by Downs and others has shown that the incidence of the disease in the first cull areas of Somerset and Gloucester has fallen substantially, by 37% and 66% respectively.
However, the badger is an iconic, protected species and no one wants to be culling badgers forever. An intensive badger cull was only ever envisaged as a phase of the strategy, not a perpetual state of affairs. Therefore, five years into the current strategy, it is appropriate to take stock and consider how the policy might be evolved. That is why the Government asked Sir Charles to conduct a review of the bTB strategy which concluded in October 2018.
The UK benefits from world-leading science and the Government believe we should deploy our expertise to accelerate the development of a deployable cattle vaccine against bTB. While the current BCG vaccine will never provide full protection, the Government will accelerate work to authorise a test that can differentiate between the disease and the vaccine, and will provide the funding necessary to initiate the research and trial work needed towards the aim of having a deployable vaccine in the next five years. Vaccination is manifestly easier to deliver to herds of cattle than to wildlife and could significantly reduce the spread of the disease both between cattle and between cattle herds and wildlife. BTB is a global challenge and not every country can afford to test and remove cattle. The UK can harness its world-leading science in developing solutions such as vaccination that would also be valuable to other countries trying to fight the disease.
The Government will also begin an exit strategy from the intensive culling of badgers, while ensuring that wildlife control remains a tool that can be deployed where the epidemiological evidence supports it. As soon as possible, we intend to pilot Government-funded badger vaccination in at least one area where the four-year cull cycle has concluded, with simultaneous surveillance of disease. Our aim is to identify an exit strategy from culling in those areas that have completed the four years of intensive culling by deploying vaccination to the remaining badger population.
While the Government must retain the ability to introduce new cull zones where the disease is rife, our aim will be to allow future badger culls only where the epidemiological evidence points to a significant reservoir of the disease in badgers. We envisage that any remaining areas would join the current cull programme in the next few years and that the badger cull phase of the strategy would then wind down by the mid to late 2020s, although we would need to retain the ability to cull in a targeted way where the epidemiological evidence requires it.
In the edge area, where some vaccination projects have been supported, our aim will be to ensure that badger culling is only authorised in areas where the epidemiological evidence points to a problem in badgers. We will continue to support badger vaccination projects in areas where the prevalence of disease is low. We will also investigate the potential for projects where adjacent vaccination and culling could complement each other in controlling disease. Changes to our guidance to Natural England on licensing badger control will be subject to consultation.
Finally, the Government will invest in the deployment of better, more frequent and more diverse cattle testing so that we are able to detect the presence of the disease earlier and remove it from cattle herds faster. As a first step, the frequency of mandatory surveillance testing in two counties which form part of the HRA—Shropshire and Staffordshire—will increase from annual to six-monthly from later this year. We expect this to be extended to all parts of the HRA from 2021. Improving the efficacy of our testing regime through better diagnostics is a key component of a successful strategy.
There is no single answer to tackling the scourge of bTB but by deploying a range of policy interventions, we can turn the tide on this terrible disease and achieve our long-term objective of eradicating it by 2038.
[HCWS148]
Victims Code of Practice
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Today, I am launching the Government consultation on a draft revised code of practice for victims of crime (the code) and the response to last year’s consultation on proposed changes to the code.
The consultation builds on that undertaken last summer and is another major step towards meeting the commitment made in the cross-Government victims’ strategy to strengthen the victims’ code. It also fulfils our statutory obligations under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to publish and consult on a draft version before amending the code.
We are grateful to victims, stakeholders and the public at large who took time to respond to the initial consultation. We have carefully considered their responses which wholeheartedly endorsed our proposed approach to change. Their views have helped us to create the draft revised version of the code and have played a significant part in helping us identify the key changes that we believe need to be made to ensure that victims’ rights are set out in a clearer, more coherent and meaningful way for victims.
It is vital that those who are caught up in the criminal justice system understand their rights and the minimum levels of service and information they should receive from criminal justice agencies.
We therefore propose to make a number of changes to the code, but I want to be clear that the minimum levels of service and information that victims are currently entitled to under the existing code will be maintained. Rather, the changes are designed to strengthen existing rights and deliver an improved service for victims, helping them to cope better when they may be experiencing trauma in the aftermath of a crime.
Building on the proposals made in the first consultation, key proposals include:
Amending the code’s structure and reducing its complexity, bringing together the current five chapters into one concise code. We have merged the large number of existing entitlements and set these out as 12 clear overarching rights;
While we have retained the existing eligibility categories for access to enhanced support and information, we have made clearer in the draft revised code that service providers have the discretion to offer enhanced rights to victims who fall outside the scope of the existing categories;
For the first time, victims of unrestricted mentally disordered patients in the victim contact scheme will be allocated national probation service victim liaison officers bringing greater parity in services for these victims, comparable to those received by victims of restricted patients;
Again, for the first time, the draft revised code specifically sets out the entitlements of victims of foreign national offenders; and
We have also included practical information about how victims can access services provided by the National Health Service (NHS) and sign-posted them to where they can get help and advice if they are approached by the media.
Alongside our work to refine the code, we are already looking into how to build victim awareness of the code and their rights, including creating a short, user friendly overview and an online summary for victims. We are also working with police and crime commissioners and local criminal justice partnerships to monitor and improve compliance with the code.
After we have published the revised code, we will turn to consulting on the detail of a victims law that will guarantee victims their rights and look to further strengthen enforcement of the w.
The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-improving-the-victims-code
[HCWS150]
Joseph McCann: Probation and Recall
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
On 6 December 2019 Joseph McCann was given 33 life sentences at the central criminal court for a series of violent sexual attacks which he committed between 21 April and 6 May that same year. His victims, ranging from an 11-year-old boy to a 71-year-old woman, each suffered a terrifying ordeal, and I pay tribute to them for the courage they showed in giving evidence to secure McCann’s conviction. Mr Justice Edis ordered that McCann serve a minimum of 30 years before being eligible for release on parole.
When he started these attacks, McCann was being supervised on licence by the national probation service, having been released automatically from prison on 15 February, after he had served half of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary and robbery offences, less time spent on remand. However, an initial management review and then a full serious further offence (SFO) review confirmed that the court imposed that sentence on 25 January 2018 on the understanding that it would run concurrent to a recall to prison in connection with an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) which he had received in 2009 for aggravated burglary. However, staff in the national probation service (NPS) south-east and eastern division failed to recall McCann, both when he was remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 and when he received the new sentence on 25 January 2018. Had he been recalled, he would not have been released automatically on 15 February last year; rather, the parole board would have conducted a full risk assessment in order to determine whether it was safe re-release him on licence.
There was only a limited amount which could be shared publicly, whilst we awaited the outcome of McCann’s trial, but under ministerial direction officials re-launched the recall policy framework in early July, giving NPS divisional directors and chief executives of community rehabilitation companies personal responsibility for ensuring that their staff understood the purpose of recall and the threshold for recall. Then, in January this year, alongside the recall policy framework, new mandatory training on recall for all probation staff was launched together with fresh operational guidance, to support staff in the judgments they need to make when presented with evidence of an offender’s increased risk or an offender breaching licence conditions.
As a vital part of our service to victims, the NPS offers victims the opportunity to receive a copy of the SFO review, redacted only to fulfil our statutory obligations to protect the rights to privacy of third parties. After McCann had been sentenced on 6 December, NPS victim liaison officers contacted McCann’s victims and asked them whether they would like to meet an assistant chief of probation, in order to have the findings of the SFO review explained to them and to hear the action which has been taken to address the failings which the SFO review sets out. Meetings were then arranged, having regard to the victims’ preferences and availability, the first on 27 February and the final one on 5 March.
Our primary responsibility is towards the victims, which is why I have waited until they have received the full SFO review before announcing further measures.
In order to address the serious concerns which have arisen in this case and to provide wider public assurance, I have decided, exceptionally, to publish a version of the SFO review. This is not the full review, necessarily redacted, which has been shared with McCann’s victims, but it is a thorough and open account of what went wrong in this case and what has been done to put it right.
Further, so we can be absolutely sure that all the lessons of this terrible case have been learned and addressed, I have asked Her Majesty’s chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, to conduct an independent review. Justin has decided that the review will be in two parts: the first by pursuing specific lines of enquiry in relation to the management of McCann in custody and in the community and by considering whether HMPPS has taken all the organisational action necessary to improve practice in the areas in which it was found wanting, the second to take a wider look on the culture and understanding of recall in the probation service. The chief inspector has placed the terms of reference for his review here: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov. uk/hmiprobation/about-our-work/inquiriesandreviews.
When I receive the chief inspector’s reports, I will consider whether more needs to be done to strengthen probation practice. I am determined to do all that is necessary to protect the public from known offenders. They, and McCann’s victims in particular, deserve no less.
[HCWS151]
Investigatory Powers Commissioner: Annual Report
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The report was submitted by the new commissioner, Sir Brian Leveson, but covers the year 2018 and was drafted by Sir Brian’s predecessor, Lord Justice Fulford.
Overall, this report demonstrates that the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and other relevant public authorities show extremely high levels of operational competence combined with respect for the law. The report also sets out the breadth and complexity of the powers covered by the 2016 Act and other legislation, and offers constructive criticism on the practical framework and individual instances of how these are used. Where the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) have identified problems, Departments and agencies have worked vigorously to address these.
Further to section 234 of the 2016 Act, the commissioner has also submitted to me a confidential annex to the report, dealing with the work of the intelligence agencies. I concur with the commissioner that publication of this annex would be prejudicial to national security and not in the public interest. However, I can confirm that the annex does not raise substantive concerns or criticisms not covered in the main report.
I would like to add that this report demonstrates the high quality of the oversight of our intelligence and security agencies’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our arrangements are amongst the strongest and most effective in the world.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the current and previous commissioners and their staff for their work, as well as echoing the commissioners’ thanks to the agencies and departments and civil society organisations which have helped with the establishment of IPCO over the past few years.
I commend this report to the House.
[HCWS149]
Flybe
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
In the early hours of this morning, Flybe ceased trading.
We appreciate the impact this will have on Flybe passengers and employees. Our immediate priority is to ensure passengers are kept informed of alternative travel options and employees who have lost their jobs are assisted in accessing support and advice. We know this will be a worrying time for Flybe staff and our Jobcentre Plus rapid response service stands ready to help anyone whose job may be at risk.
Affected passengers have been advised not to turn up to the airport. For those passengers who did arrive at UK airports today, Her Majesty’s Government in-person support has been available to provide them with information. The majority of Flybe’s destinations are served by different transport options, and we have asked train and coach operators to accept Flybe tickets and other airlines to offer reduced rescue fares to ensure passengers can make their journeys as smoothly as possible. Following talks with Britain’s train operators, all Flybe staff and customers will be offered a free, alternative way home this week. To redeem the journey, present your employee ID or flight confirmation details. Government staff will continue to further assist at airports. A number of airlines have stepped forward to provide rescue fares for passengers.
For the small number of passengers who are abroad, there is sufficient capacity on other commercial airlines to return to the UK. Again, the Civil Aviation Authority is encouraging these airlines to offer rescue fares. The CAA website will also provide information on how people may be able to claim back money they have spent on tickets from travel insurance providers, travel agents or their credit card providers.
We are urgently working with industry to identify opportunities to re-establish key routes, and have spoken with airlines and airports today to emphasise this. We are pleased to see that airlines have already committed to operating a number of these routes in the near future.
I am conscious of the impact on all regions of the UK, particularly Northern Ireland, given the importance of air-based connectivity. The aviation Minister has spoken to counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure they are kept informed of the latest developments and are aware of the response plans put in place by my Department and the CAA.
Levelling up connectivity across our regions and nations is a top priority for this Government, which is why we are undertaking a review of regional connectivity to ensure the UK has the domestic transport connections local communities rely on—including regional airports. The Treasury is also reviewing air passenger duty (APD) to ensure regional connectivity is supported while meeting the UK’s climate change commitments to meet net zero by 2050.
These measures featured in conversations with Flybe back in January and, in turn, they agreed to continue operating.
Since then, we explored multiple options with Flybe’s shareholders to find a solution, but the directors decided it was not viable to keep Flybe operating. Unfortunately, in a competitive market companies do fail, but it is not the role of Government to prop them up.
Globally, aviation is facing challenges due to the impact of coronavirus. The Government are well prepared for this. As the wider economic picture becomes clearer, the Chancellor has said that he stands ready to announce further support where needed. I have today written to Airport Co-ordination Limited, the independent UK slot co-ordinator, asking them to explicitly take into account the implications of flying empty planes on the UK’s environmental commitments in reaching decisions on slot alleviation in relation to coronavirus.
[HCWS152]
State Pension Age: Universal Credit
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I can today announce that we will amend regulations to smooth the transition from universal credit to pensioner benefits and remove any potential gap in support.
All those who reach state pension age while claiming universal credit will receive a run-on, meaning that they can receive a payment for the entire assessment period in which they reach state pension age. Entitlement to pensioner benefits and state pension is unaffected and continues as usual. This ensures there is no gap in benefit provision as people approach state pension age. This will benefit approximately 200,000 pensioners who will benefit by an average of £350 from this run-on at a cost of around £70 million over the next five years.
This process is already in operation on an extra statutory basis, ensuring that nobody loses out upon reaching state pension age, and legislation will be amended accordingly later this year.
[HCWS146]
Surplus Earnings
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The surplus earnings policy was introduced to prevent people who are paid large amounts of earnings on an irregular basis from receiving a greater amount of benefit and earnings than claimants who for example earn the same annual salary but are paid over 12 regular salary payments.
This means that where a claimant receives a large payment of earnings within an assessment period which is sufficient to end their universal credit award, and then reclaims universal credit within six months of that award ending, earnings above the de minimis level will be taken into account as earnings for the new award.
I will sign a determination to extend the current £2,500 universal credit surplus earnings de minimis level from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 and will place a copy in the Library. This will safeguard the efficient administration of universal credit by not reducing the de minimis to £300 as provided by the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.
This measure will cost £70 million in 2020-21 and will mean around 500,000 fewer people will see their universal credit award reduced by surplus earnings.
[HCWS147]