House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2023 - (24 Mar 2023)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we get on to proceedings, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the debate on Report is the amendments that I have selected. The scope of the debate on Third Reading, to follow, will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points before deciding at which stage or stages they want to catch my eye, to ensure that their speeches are relevant to each stage of consideration of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Guidance
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to—
(a) chief officers of police,
(b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force,
(c) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, and
(d) the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,
about the offence in section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex).
(2) The guidance must in particular include guidance about the reasonable conduct defence in section 4A(3)(b) of that Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise guidance issued under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for guidance issued under this section to be published.
(5) A chief officer of police or a chief constable mentioned in subsection (1) must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Greg Clark.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police about the new offence in section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. It also requires that guidance to include provision about the application of the reasonable conduct defence in section 4A(3)(b) of that Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “4A(1)” insert “primarily”.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, leave out “because of” and insert “due to”.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 8, leave out “(or presumed sex)”.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 10, leave out ““presumed” means presumed by A;”.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 14, after “not—” insert— “(za) A is a man or a woman,”.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, leave out “because of” and insert “due to”.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 16, after “other” insert “subsidiary”.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, after “1” insert “, (Guidance)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 20, leave out from “on” to the end of line 21 and insert “1 August 2023”.
Greg Clark
In line with your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will address my new clause and the amendment in my name specifically, and I will also touch on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I will not rehearse the reasons for the Bill. We have had a substantial debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope it may be possible to say more on Third Reading.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police about the new offence proposed in the Bill, and that guidance must include, but is not limited to, guidance on the defence of reasonable conduct that is already contained in the Public Order Act 1986.
During our debate in Committee, some Members were understandably concerned that the perpetrator of an act of deliberate harassment of a person on the grounds of their sex could escape the consequences of their actions by asserting that they thought their behaviour was reasonable. Some Members thought there was a risk that the police might be put off from taking the offence seriously, because of that potential defence. In fact, in the Public Order Act, reasonableness is not in the eye of the accused. Simply saying that behaviour that was intentionally designed to cause alarm or distress was reasonable does not provide a “get out of jail” card. Having clear guidance on this point would ensure that the matter is crystal clear to the police and all the authorities.
The proposed requirement for statutory guidance therefore provides that clarity, but it is not limited to that; the guidance can include other matters, should that prove desirable in future. The guidance would be addressed to the police, as is obvious from the terms of the new clause, but in practice its use would be wider than that, and would include the Crown Prosecution Service. That is because statutory guidance, once issued, is in practice taken by all parties to be authoritative. Indeed, there is no point in having separate guidance for the police, the CPS and any other body.
This is far from the only occasion when guidance is formally issued and addressed to one particular audience, rather than being proliferated to multiple actors. For example, statutory guidance within the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is formally issued to the police, but was drawn up in consultation with other statutory partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service. I envisage and hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the same approach will be taken in this case, and that the CPS would be involved in drawing up the guidance to which my new clause refers.
It seems to me, reflecting on the debate we had in Committee, that an amendment that guidance must be issued and must include, inter alia, statutory requirements on the interpretation of reasonable conduct, is a pragmatic and practical way of responding to the points made in the debate. I am delighted that new clause 1 has attracted widespread support, including that of the Government, whose assistance in drafting it I grateful acknowledge.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How long does my right hon. Friend expect it to take for this guidance to be produced? The guidance requested last year on the draft code of practice on the recording and retention of personal data for non-crime hate incidents took more than one year to produce. Does he envisage a similarly long period? To what extent does he expect the House to have a say on the content of the guidance?
Greg Clark
I would be very dismayed if it took a year to draw up such guidance, and my hon. Friend gives a cautionary warning. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope he might undertake to produce the guidance with dispatch. I said a few moments ago that it is right and appropriate that guidance is drawn up in conjunction with the CPS, which also has regard to it, and that will take some time. I hope, however, that it will be a matter of weeks rather than a large number of months. The Minister and I are experienced in office, and we know that only the Minister can give an assurance as to how long it will take, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend shares my impatience to get on with it.
Sir Christopher Chope
What about the ability of the House to comment on the guidance when it is produced, or during its preparation?
Greg Clark
As my hon. Friend knows, guidance is issued by the Government of the day. It is not a statutory instrument, and we are not proposing that it should be. I think it would be desirable for such guidance to be shared not just with the House but in public. Guidance that is important should enjoy the confidence and wisdom of those who intend to use it.
Sir Christopher Chope
Finally, does my right hon. Friend envisage that the guidance should first be produced in draft form, so that there is an opportunity for people to be consulted publicly on it?
Greg Clark
Again, that is a matter for the Minister, but I would not only be content with that but think it a desirable route to take.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend, he is right to seek to ensure that legislation in this House is properly scrutinised and debated, and the points he has raised—including those he just made—are pertinent and valuable. As I hope he might expect, I have studied his amendments carefully, so let me deal with them in turn.
Amendments 3 to 5 prefer the words “due to” to “because of”. Precise language is important—he and I share that view—but I do not think that the preference on his part signifies any difference in interpretation. The expression “because of” is extensively used in existing legislation. For example, section 66(4) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 refers to circumstances in which someone suffers loss or damage
“because of the dangerous state of the premises”
That is “because of” rather than “due to”. With perhaps more immediate relevance to our discussions, the Equality Act 2010 uses “because of” rather than “due to”. For example, paragraph 3(5) of schedule 11, on school admissions, refers to circumstances in which a school
“does not admit a person as a pupil because of the person’s sex”,
rather than “due to” it. It may well be that my hon. Friend’s use of language is more elegant than that contained in the laws already on the statute book, but I hope he will agree that there is some virtue in linguistic consistency in the law. That is the reason behind that choice of words.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise as the person who tabled the original amendments in Committee that prefigured new clause 1, to recognise this as the best of Parliament. When we come together to write legislation we believe will make a positive and constructive difference to people, listening to each other’s concerns and recognising the positive pare that scrutiny can play in the process, it can bear fruits that we can all support. I welcome and support new clause 1 as a recognition that there was a concern and an issue with the concept of reasonableness being at the heart of public order offences. Let me clarify what I mean by that.
Let me clarify what I mean by that: this legislation is about harassment, and other forms of harassment legislation have always had within them a test that someone’s behaviour cannot be considered reasonable if general opinion would be that their behaviour was unreasonable. In layman’s terms, when it comes to the harassment that we are talking about, if someone were being followed down the street and shouted at—particularly about their sex or presumed sex—even if that person were to claim it was reasonable, a magistrate should be able to say that it was patently not. The person responsible should not be able to evade prosecution under this legislation. However, this Bill was originally based on public order offences legislation, which does not include that distinction about whether somebody ought to know that their behaviour was unreasonable.
It is very welcome that the Government have listened and agreed to put out guidance to consider that point. I hope that setting out what I believe that guidance should cover will be a helpful guide to the Government, and perhaps will answer the genuine queries from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about whether there can be involvement in it. For many of us, getting this issue right goes to the heart of how this legislation will deliver the effective freedom that we hope for particularly, but not exclusively, for women, as it is women who are overwhelmingly reporting the kind of incidents that we are talking about in this legislation.
One of the challenges will be the initial decision as to whether someone has committed an offence. Many of us are extremely used to the idea that the challenge is our reaction to someone’s provocation, rather than the provocation. I hope that new clause 1 will recognise that, consistent with other forms of harassment legislation, a defendant arguing that their behaviour is reasonable should not be a reason not to proceed with a charge. I want to be clear about that, because I understand why people would be concerned. No one is suggesting that the reasonableness defence should not remain; we are arguing that it should for the courts or the magistrates to decide whether the behaviour was reasonable, rather than the defendant. In setting out the guidance, I hope that the Government will give weight to the idea that the presentation of a reasonableness defence, which is quite frequent in harassment cases but not necessarily in public order offences, should not deter the CPS or the police from seeking to proceed with a prosecution. In that sense, it would be consistent with the guidance on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
In reference to some of the amendments tabled, agree with the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) about the importance of consistency in the law. I add my support to his argument about retaining the provision on presumed sex within the Bill. The most important thing about this legislation is that it turns the lens from the behaviour of victims—women in particular, because although this legislation covers both men and women, and male and female perpetrators, women will particularly benefit from our clarifying that street-based harassment is unacceptable and is illegal already, and therefore carries a higher penalty if it is targeted in this way. Too often, the victim’s behaviour has been called into question in decisions whether to prosecute. It important that the legislation is written in such a way to turn our attention back to the perpetrator. Were we to have loopholes, whether around reasonableness or the status of the victim, we could inadvertently undermine the capacity of the police and the CPS to secure that outcome.
I recognise the attempts from the hon. Member for Christchurch to test the legislation. If he read the scrutiny of the legislation in Committee, he would appreciate that, because that is where new clause 1 has derived from. I hope he will understand that many of us feel that the changes he suggests would undermine the Bill, because it would not be as clear that our sole concern is the people who harass, intimidate and abuse other people in public because they are focused on the sex or presumed sex of the victim. The important message that we want to send by passing this legislation is that the existing crimes should not be diminished, ignored and seen as part of everyday life, and that we should address them.
That is what I wanted to say, as the person who originally drafted the amendment that has led to new clause 1. I also recognise the cross-party working to get this legislation right. I hope that those who had concerns about new clause 1 or other parts of the legislation will see the benefit of having had these discussions, and that the Bill will benefit many of our constituents as a result.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who I know takes a great interest in this particular subject. I am delighted that she included in her remarks a reference to the fact that this legislation applies equally to men who are victims as it does to women who are victims.
Greg Clark
I do not seek to quarrel with my hon. Friend. But let us consider the analogous situation in which a person with brown skin, relatively dark skin, were the subject of a humiliating torrent of racial abuse in the street but was not a member of a given racial group, I do not think that would diminish the impact and the offence intended by the person. Surely the same would apply in this case, and the person on the receiving end would feel humiliation and the perpetrator would have had exactly the same intention.
Sir Christopher Chope
With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I think he is conflating two dissimilar situations, because the situation he is describing is already an aggravated offence and what we are talking about here are offences that are not aggravated. Indeed, this Bill has been introduced because they are not regarded as aggravated offences and thereby qualifying for greater punishment.
It is a mistake to try to equate a situation where something is already an aggravated offence with the situation described in this Bill. If a person is harassing or making remarks to somebody in the mistaken belief that they are trying to insult a woman, but it turns out that they are a man, that seems to me to be a mistake. Although that will probably still enable the person to be convicted of a public order offence, it will be a public order offence not because of their behaviour, but because of that person’s sex. It is semantics, I am prepared to concede, but that is why I introduced that amendment.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Before the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), was my hon. Friend saying that misgendering somebody would cause less offence to them as opposed to greater offence? To my mind, any sexual-based harassment, whether it be misgendered or correctly gendered, will still cause offence.
Sir Christopher Chope
I have tried to avoid—and have done so up to now—getting into the debate about the difference between sex and gender. I will not rise to my hon. Friend’s bait to try to develop arguments around that. The Bill, commendably, is specific to sex, and it leaves out gender. I will leave it at that if that is all right with my hon. Friend.
This brings me to the conclusion of my remarks. I will not say what my intentions are in relation to these amendments until I have heard from the Minister, which I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will think is a reasonable approach to take.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
First, let me say how pleased I am to see the Bill finally making its way through the House today. I thank all of the campaigners and people who have worked tirelessly on this issue, including, obviously, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) with all of his engagement, the civil servants who have been working with him, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the many other Members who have contributed to discussions on this subject for such a long time.
As we near the end of Women’s History Month 2023, I can say that the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. I will, if I may, pull us back to the main subject at issue, which is around public sexual harassment. It does remain a major problem in our society. Plan International UK found that three quarters of girls and young women aged 12 to 21 experienced a form of sexual harassment in a public space in their lifetime. Those numbers increase for disabled women and girls, and for women and girls from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background. The impact of this harassment is shocking. Perhaps it is worth reminding the House about that as we discuss the Bill. In 2020, the Girl Guides found out that 80% of girls and young women feel unsafe when they are out on their own, increasing to 96% of young women aged 17 and 18.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Just a reminder that, at this stage, we are discussing the amendment. There will be, I am sure, a very good opportunity on Third Reading for the wider issues, but at this point we are on Report. If the hon. Lady prefers to wait to Third Reading, that is absolutely fine.
Anneliese Dodds
In that case, I will just say that I mentioned those points in relation to new clause 1 and the other amendments. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has set out very clearly the rationale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, spelling out why we require guidance—we all hope that it will come speedily—but also why it is important that the legislation is consistent with other Acts in this area. I hope that the House will bear those remarks in mind when deciding how to vote.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to speak to the amendments before the House on Report. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for his new clause 1 and amendment 1, and I am happy to confirm formally that the Government support those amendments.
As my right hon. Friend has set out, the new clause would require Ministers to publish statutory guidance for all police forces, to which those police forces would have to have regard. In particular, the guidance would need to include material about the reasonable conduct defence that has been the focus of so much discussion. There has been some concern, expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others, that a subjective interpretation of the reasonable conduct defence might be adopted by defendants in an attempt to repudiate responsibility for their actions or to avoid conviction.
It is the view of the Government that what constitutes reasonable conduct can be defined objectively with regard to their conduct, without needing to have regard to somebody’s internal thought processes. However, we agree that guidance would be valuable in order to be completely clear about that point and to remove any ambiguity, so we are happy to support new clause 1 and amendment 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.
It will of course be possible for many other people besides the police to refer to the guidance, including the Crown Prosecution Service, which we would expect to operate on the same basis as the police when prosecuting those offences. To respond to a very reasonable question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), we want to get this done as quickly as possible. I certainly would not want or expect it to take anything like so long as a year, which he referred to in his speech in a different context; I hope it can be accomplished in a matter of months.
My hon. Friend also said that the guidance should be subject to input and scrutiny to ensure that it is constructed in a way that is proportionate and reasonable, and I am sure the hon. Member for Walthamstow would agree. I would therefore expect opportunities to be provided to interested parties to provide that comment and I will give consideration to whether we should have a formal consultation process on the guidance. We should be mindful that that would introduce additional delay, but, given that the point has been raised, we will give it thought and strike the right balance between getting the guidance done quickly, which everyone wants, and making sure that interested parties both in Parliament and outside have an opportunity to input into its construction.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for tabling the amendments and to other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Walthamstow and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for offering their comments.
Sir Christopher Chope
Would it not be normal to produce the draft guidance and then consult on it, rather than expecting the Government to come up with the perfect solution after they have received representations in general? I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to take the approach of having draft guidance first.
Chris Philp
It is occasionally possible for the Government to come up with something perfect straight away, but I accept that that does not always occur. The process that my hon. Friend just set out, where the Government might publish a draft and invite comments on it, either informally or via a formal consultation, seems to me a sensible way of arranging matters.
Stella Creasy
One of the concerns behind much of this is about consistency in the law. With other forms of harassment legislation, how reasonableness is defined is already written in. I invite the Minister to consider whether the important thing is not to come up with a whole new set of guidelines, but simply to clarify and be consistent in how we expect courts and juries to consider that concept when somebody claims, “I thought my behaviour was reasonable,” and the law says, “Well, you ought to have known,” in other forms of harassment legislation. This is not about a new piece of guidance; it is about clarifying matters so that we do not inadvertently damage the ways in which our courts can work. For example, the CPS guidance on the Serious Crime Act 2015 talks about how defendants “ought to know” about the course of conduct—again, with oblique directions that judges can give. There is plenty of guidance out there; we really just need to compile it into one document, do we not?
Chris Philp
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. There is existing guidance and practice in other areas that quite rightly clarifies or confirms that the assessment of reasonableness includes what somebody ought to have known, and that inferences can be drawn from their behaviour. She is quite right to point to that existing guidance and practice, and I completely agree that we should be consistent on that. I am sure that looking at that would help to draw up the draft in a quick manner. A combination of the approaches suggested by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will quickly lead us to the right answer and enable us to publish something—a draft—and get views on it, as my hon. Friend suggested. It sounds to me as if there is a rapid, sensible, pragmatic and consistent way forward.
Let me turn now to the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. On the topic of his good humour, I have been informed by the Government Whips—a source of unimpeachable reliability, obviously—that his Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill has successfully passed its Second Reading unopposed in the other place. I hope that that provides an early boost to his good humour. Although it does not relate directly to an amendment, I just want to respond to one important point that arose in his speech, on something that I have noticed, too: adverts on London underground tubes referring to people’s behaviour in terms of where they look. He said that those were produced by the Government. For the sake of clarity, those advertisements are in fact produced by the Mayor of London in his capacity as the head of Transport for London.
As the House has heard and would expect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells has given the various amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch close and careful consideration, as have colleagues in the Home Office. We completely understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has tabled the amendments after a great deal of consideration, and we have taken them very seriously indeed, so I will go through them one by one.
First, amendments 2 and 6 would require the other person’s sex—the victim’s sex—to have been the principal motivation for the defendant’s behaviour. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells has set out, he has drafted the legislation in the way that he has so that we are following precedent, and, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said a moment ago, it is best that, where possible, we are consistent in the way we legislate. If any component of the motivation for the defendant’s behaviour is concerned with the sex of the victim, that is, in itself, of great concern. It may not be the principal component in some cases—it may simply be one component or a subsidiary component—but it is serious none the less.
The aim of the House is to protect people from sex-based harassment, and it strikes me that, whether the sex-based component is the principal component or a subsidiary component, the seriousness remains. Having considered that very carefully and, of course, discussed it with the Bill’s promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, our feeling on balance is that the drafting as it was best translates the House’s intention into legislation and is consistent with the rest of the statute book.
Amendments 3 and 5 would replace the words “because of”. Once again, as my right hon. Friend has set out, those words appear in a number of other contexts, in other pieces of legislation, and although we cannot, as he said, dispute the command of the English language and elegance of expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, there is a great benefit to consistency with other pieces of legislation. We feel that following precedent and maintaining that consistency is a good idea.
Amendments 7 and 8 would restrict the new offence to cases in which the harassing is done because of the victim’s actual sex, rather than what the defendant presumes the victim’s sex to be. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that getting into wider discussions about the distinction between sex and gender would probably not be helpful in the context of this debate. We are considering here a circumstance in which someone harasses someone else in the erroneous belief that that person’s gender is the opposite of what it actually is. I think that what matters is the intent to cause sex-based distress and harassment, and that even if the perpetrator, or the alleged perpetrator, was mistaken in their assumption about the sex of the victim—or the purported victim, the complainant—that does not minimise or mitigate the seriousness of the act, because the intention was there and the act was undertaken.
At this point I should say that I had meant to address at the start of my speech a question that arose while my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was speaking. Let me deal with it now. I agree with my hon. Friend that concerns about prison capacity should not constrain what the House may do in framing new legislation. It is of course incumbent upon Parliament to legislate and set out criminal offences. The police will investigate, the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute and the courts will, if appropriate, convict. It is then up to the Government to ensure that adequate prison capacity is available. I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is engaged in a substantial prison building programme, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that prison capacity constraints or availability should in no way fetter the House as it considers legislation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making some very good points, with only one exception: I think that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has had a good record in this general area. When it comes to the prison population, however, is it not about time that we did something about the 1,000 young people who are convicted under joint enterprise? That could open up so much capacity in our prisons.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Let us stick to the amendments.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am sure that—as you have implied, Madam Deputy Speaker—the House will have an opportunity to consider it on another occasion.
Amendment 4 would make the Bill state that the defendant can be a man or a woman. As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, the defendant could indeed be a man or a woman, and indeed the victim could be a man or a woman, because, as we have established, the Bill makes no distinction between men and women. We do not generally set out in legislation the permitted genders of potential perpetrators, or those who might be guilty. Almost every offence is capable of being committed by a man or a woman, but we do not usually need to put that on the face of a Bill, and I do not think we need to do so in this instance. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was right to raise this issue and to seek the clarification that I am happy to provide.
Amendment 9 requires the Bill to come into force on 1 August this year. I entirely share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Member for Walthamstow to get the Bill activated quickly. Let me be candid and say that, as a Minister, I sometimes find it frustrating that it takes longer to get things done than perhaps it ought to, so I share the sentiment expressed in the amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said earlier, there is some uncertainty about the timing of the Bill’s passage through the other place. Obviously, their lordships regulate their own business, and we cannot be certain about how they may seek to dispose of the Bill.
There is also the question about the guidance, which we have discussed already, and the suggestion that we publish a draft that people can then comment on. That will take a little time. I hope it is a few months, but I do not want to create a tripwire that we inadvertently stumble over. I suggest that we proceed, as is often the case in primary legislation, with commencement via a statutory instrument, with a firm undertaking from the Government that we will seek to do this as soon as possible. The Bill clearly commands, in principle, widespread support across the House, and for the sake of protecting women and men it is important that we get this on to the statute book, and operational and effective, as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 1, page 2, line 20, after “1” insert “, (Guidance)”.—(Greg Clark.)
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Third Reading
Greg Clark
I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful for the debates that we have had in Committee and in the House this morning. The amendments that have been accepted reflect our substantial debate in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendments, which have afforded us the opportunity to clarify some important aspects of the Bill, and have some commitments made from the Dispatch Box that will be useful to us if, as I hope, the Bill continues to make progress.
We have taken some time this morning, and I am conscious that other colleagues have Bills that they are anxious to progress. If those Bills are to be properly scrutinised, that requires me to be brief. If the House decides to give the Bill its Third Reading, it will be an historic day. For the first time in our history, deliberately harassing, following, shouting degrading words or making obscene gestures at women and girls—and yes, on occasion, at men and boys—in public places, because of their sex, and with the deliberate intention to cause them alarm or distress, will be a specific offence, and a serious one at that.
The astonishing thing is that that has not been an offence until now, many years after it was made an aggravated offence to harass someone in public on grounds of their race, religion or sexuality, for example. Indeed, women—it is mostly women, although the Bill also applies to men—have had to alter the way they live their lives: to walk home using different routes; to arrange to be accompanied rather than walk alone; to have, or pretend to have, conversations on a mobile phone while walking alone; to hold keys clenched in their hands as a safeguard.
So prevalent is this that when visiting a sixth form at one of my local schools a few weeks ago, with young men and women of 17 and 18, I asked how many students in the class typically walked home with keys in their hands. Instantly, without conferring, every young woman in the class put up their hand. Not a single young man did, and they expressed some mystification that this happens at all. Such are the changes and accommodations that have, sometimes subconsciously, been made because of the potential and reality of harassment in public.
Our streets belong to women just as much as they belong to men. Women should be able to use our streets as confidently and safely as men do, free from abuse, humiliation, and physical or verbal violence. The Bill makes the specific but important step that harassing women—or men or boys, if it applies to them—in the street with the intention to degrade or terrify is not normal, natural or “just the way of the world”; it is a crime, and a serious one at that. The Bill will address that anomaly and move our legislation forward. I commend it to the House.
Stella Creasy
This Bill has been a long time in gestation. It reflects years of campaigning about a simple concept, clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and the surprise that those not affected by it feel when they realise and see it: that misogyny is driving crimes against women and girls. It is a simple statement but a clear recognition, for the first time ever in legislation, that women are being targeted simply because they are women; that young girls in our society walk holding their keys, get asked, “What were you wearing?”, are told not to get on buses at a certain time of night, and are made to feel frightened and to be wary in a way that young men are not.
I want to address head-on the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) because I agree with him that we have to stand up for our young men. We have to stand up for the bulk of young men who know when they see that and who realise what is happening to their sisters, mums, friends in school, aunties and cousins, and how awful it must be that 51% of our society does not have the same freedom to go about their daily business. Those young men deserve better than the idea that somehow this kind of behaviour is inevitable and that “boys will be boys.” In passing this legislation today, we are standing up not just for men and boys, because the legislation covers men and women equally, but for that quiet majority of young and older men who recognise that this behaviour is completely unacceptable, that it is criminal and that, for too long, nothing has been done about it.
I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch is somebody who very much cares about the evidence, so let me give him the detail. Where those police forces have been taking seriously crimes that are motivated by sex or presumed sex and are recording that data, the story they tell is compelling for why the legislation matters. Twelve of the 43 police forces in England and Wales now use this policy. The crime survey for England and Wales found there were 67,000 reports of hate crime based on gender between March 2015 and 2018, and 57,000 of those were targeted at women. This police policy started in Nottinghamshire, under the leadership of Sue Fish, and it showed a clear difference. I hope all of us in this House will pay tribute to Sue Fish and the tremendous work she has done in recognising the benefits to policing of taking this approach.
In that same time period, Nottinghamshire Police received 269 reports of misogyny, 125 of which were classed as hate crime and 144 were classed as non-crime incidents. Of the 265 misogyny hate crime victims, 243 were female. The same pattern emerges in Avon and Somerset, where just over 90% of the victims were female, but men did also come forward, so we know that men will be able to use this legislation.
My point in raising this is not to say that it somehow does not matter that young men might experience sex-based harassment; it is to recognise that at the moment in our society it is women who are paying the price for our failure to understand how misogyny has driven crime against them and to recognise that in law. What the law will do is correct that imbalance. It will bring us the opportunity not just to record that data, but finally to acknowledge it in the courts. In doing so, we stand up for all those young men who do not want to see this behaviour, who do recognise that it is abuse and harassment, and who do recognise that their sisters, their mothers, their aunts, their cousins and their friends at school deserve the same freedoms to go about their daily business as they do. This Bill, and the concept of recognising, as we do with other protected characteristics, that there are those out there who perpetrate crimes because of their hatred and anger towards somebody because of their sex or their presumed sex, is about equality of emancipation.
I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who I will know will be as deeply concerned as I was by the reports of sexual harassment among his own police force in Dorset, that one reason why many of us campaigned for this legislation and this recognition was the evidence from police forces about just how transformative it is. Let us be very clear: we are not talking about new forms of crime. We are talking about changing a culture in which women coming forward to report crime have been told, “Well, that’s just life. We couldn’t really find this person.” Not everybody who follows a woman down a road shouting abuse, suggesting that they might want to touch them in various sorts of ways and thinking that somehow that is an appropriate way to introduce themselves to somebody, becomes a rapist or a sexual abuser. But many of those who are rapists and sexual abusers start with that sort of behaviour. The kind of data the Bill will allow us to gather helps us to detect and prevent crimes. It helps us to change the culture within policing. In this week of all weeks, we know how important that will be for the safety of everybody in our constituencies.
I share with the hon. Member for Christchurch deep concern about the role models our young men have. I look on in horror at the material Andrew Tate promoted. I look on in horror at the things that can be found online that we know our young men are consuming. But I have great faith in the young men of this country. They do not need to be cosseted or nannied. They need us to stand up for their ability to be good allies, good brothers, good fathers, good friends and good work colleagues who are not likely to behave in those ways. Those who do behave in the ways we are discussing need to feel the force of the law. The law needs to be on the side of the victims, by recognising that behaviour in the way that we do other forms of hate crime.
By passing the Bill, we are sending a powerful message to our young men that they deserve better than the caricature of “boys will be boys” and the idea that they somehow cannot help themselves. We know they can. We know it is as much about our young men and the message we send them as it is our young women and their freedoms we are fighting for in this legislation. I welcome the fact that there has been cross-party work on the Bill. I pay tribute to Citizens UK, Our Streets Now and the Fawcett Society for the work they have done to make the argument that we should not minimise harassment in public. We should recognise it, treat it equally and prosecute those who behave in those ways.
I suspect that across the House there is a common agreement about how much this debate is changing. We are all of a certain age. We remember things that were on television when we were younger that we now know are not acceptable. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) is shaking his head. I am sure afterwards we can compare notes on just how awful our ’90s fashion was. We remember things that were on television, and cultural ideas about race and ethnicity, that we would now recognise are inappropriate, and indeed that created a culture in which racial hatred and abuse was encouraged. We hope, in time, that working against targeting people on the basis of their sex or presumed sex will have the same effect: that we can challenge myths, challenge expectations and challenge behaviour. But we cannot do that if the law is not on the side of women who have not come forward to date—the 80% of women who experience street-based harassment but do not report it. The Bill will change that. It will also support young men, and it will support our society to be a better version of itself.
I hope Members will support the Bill. This is the start of a process. I hope the Minister will talk about the training that will be given to the police and the CPS to ensure that the legislation is effective. But let us have no more minimisation, no more shaking our heads and saying, “It’s just the way of the world.” Let us have no more teaching young women to be frightened, to go on self-defence courses, to travel with their friends and to carry those keys, any more than we say to young men, “Well, try not to do it again.” Let us change that culture. Let us change the law. Let us make this a society where everybody is just free to live their lives in peace. I will wager, left or right, that is an ambition we can all get behind.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I will be brief, but I could not let this legislation pass without commenting on it, particularly in the week when we saw the Casey review, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred. That review reminds us all just how everyday an experience sexual harassment is for so many women and girls. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for taking up this cause. In the 13 years that I have been here, we have talked a lot about these issues, and about violence against women and girls, but it has not got much beyond words and into concrete action.
There has been much resistance to the measure because of the additional pressures that it might put on the police. By resisting it, this place was sending the message to women and girls that this was their lot; it was normalising the behaviour that we are talking about. The Casey review shows that if we normalise that behaviour in society, we give a green light to it in our police services, and the police are exactly the people who should be keeping us safe.
The Bill marks a real turning point. At last, we are sending the message, “No, we will not put up with this. This is not acceptable behaviour.” It should not be acceptable that anyone experiences harassment. Nobody should think that they can get away with it. Nobody should abuse their power and make people feel uncomfortable and distressed just because they can. I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the Bill, and really grateful to the Government for embracing and supporting it. This is a rare moment of unity; we are all on the same side. I hope this marks the beginning of many more measures that give us women the opportunity to participate in society without having to put up with intimidation day in, day out.
Peter Gibson
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on bringing forward this important and hugely welcome Bill, which will better protect all our constituents.
As I outlined in my Second Reading speech, we have a long heritage of protective legislation brought forward by Conservative Governments; there is the Children Act 1989, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and even my private hire and taxi legislation, or Sian’s law. We can add my right hon. Friend’s Bill to those. I also look forward to seeing very soon the draft legislation promised by the Government on banning conversion practices, which will add further to that range of protections. I appreciate that time is short, so I conclude by again congratulating him on the Bill’s Third Reading. I am happy to give it my full support.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I will be brief, too, given the limited time available. I rise to support the Bill, which provides greater protection from sex-based harassment. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for all his great work, and all the campaigners who have campaigned so hard on the issue.
May I please again urge the Minister to review the Metropolitan police’s tri-borough policing model? It was mentioned in Baroness Casey’s review this week, which highlighted a number of issues. I will raise one that is particularly relevant to this Bill: the review highlighted that 50% more sexual offences occur in the south-east basic command unit area, which includes my home of Bexley, than in the central north BCU, which includes the likes of Camden and Islington. However, as Baroness Casey points out, under the one-size-fits-all policing model introduced by the Mayor of London, the resourcing model is the same for both BCUs. That is not right. Alongside that, the Mayor’s disastrous ultra low emission zone plans will impact many women travelling home at night and their safety. I again urge the Minister to look into the matter of the tri-borough policing model.
Mr Sheerman
I will speak very briefly. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on introducing the Bill. I wanted to speak in support of it as a man on the Opposition Back-Benches; we in the Opposition have some very able women who have led this campaign. I have a vested interest; I have daughters—Lucy, Madlin and Verity—and I have granddaughters: Megan, Lola, Gwen, Elodie, Rosa and Arwen. They are girls, and I want them to grow up in a world where this abuse no longer exists.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I warmly welcome this Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Too many women and, even more concerningly, many girls have experienced a form of sex-based harassment in public places. The Government’s call for evidence ahead of our violence against women and girls strategy received 180,000 responses, showing the depth and breadth of feeling among British women on their safety and exposure to harassment when they are just going about their daily lives. As part of this strategy, Barnstaple in my North Devon constituency has received £348,000 of safer streets funding to tackle violence against women and girls. I know that my police and crime commissioner and local force have been tackling these crimes, which act as barriers to women and girls enjoying their local community. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for his work and to place on record my support for this important Bill.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I will also speak briefly and begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for securing the passage of this Bill. It has been great to hear it being warmly supported in the House today.
I rise primarily to pay tribute to a group of girls who really helped me understand this issue. Sandbach High School is not in my constituency—it is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)— but she kindly agreed for me to visit, because so many of my constituents go to school there. It is a girls school, and I had a session with a group of girls who put across to me how frequently this was an issue for them, even at this point in their lives, and how commonplace it was for them to experience harassment.
I also pay tribute to a charity in Crewe called Motherwell, founded by Kate Blakemore. What we have discussed today is recognising that this issue sits within a bigger picture of how we think about and treat women and girls in society. Motherwell is a women and girls charity dedicated to empowering women in all sorts of different ways, including looking at issues of their own safety. That organisation and that group of girls helped me understand this issue. I am pleased to be here today to pay tribute to them, and to my right hon. Friend, in supporting the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Anneliese Dodds
I gave my thanks previously to those who have done such an excellent job in bringing the Bill to the House, so I will be brief, but I wanted to underline an incredibly important point that has been made by a number of speakers. This Bill will be positive for everyone. The evidence for that has already been set out, including by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). When we look at the evidence about the impact of this kind of behaviour, especially on girls, I know that all of us in the House are incredibly concerned. Girlguiding UK found that a third of girls aged 17 and 18 first experienced harassment at the age of 11. It will be good for girls and women, and for boys and men, to be clear that the atrocious behaviour of a minority is truly rejected by the majority. This is therefore important legislation.
While it is good that the Bill has Government support, it is a shame that some of these important issues seem often to be relegated to private Members’ Bills. It is two years since the violence against women and girls strategy was launched, and we have not seen enough progress. We need to see more. Yes, the Bill is positive, but we need to see misogyny being made a hate crime. We need to see specialist rape courts across the country and domestic abuse specialists in every 999 room. Ultimately, we need to see a cross-Government approach. While it is absolutely right that we focus in this Bill on criminal justice and policing matters, the solution will be found more widely in our schools, hospitals and workplaces. Not delivering that solution will fail women and girls.
Chris Philp
I will be extremely brief, because I know that many other Members want to bring Bills forward today, and other Members have made excellent contributions. I quickly congratulate again my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on bringing forward this legislation. I congratulate many Members on the work they have done on this issue, particularly the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price).
It is important that this Bill is only one part of a wider piece of work to protect women and girls. Of course, this is a Government who brought forward legislation on forced marriages, stalking, upskirting and making sure that serious sexual offenders spend more of their sentence in prison. We have brought forward the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, introduced the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and legislated on female genital mutilation. There of course is a lot more work to do, and I look forward to working with colleagues in government and across the House to make further progress.
Greg Clark
With the leave of the House, I will briefly thank all those who have aided the passage of the Bill.
I start by thanking my constituents who, over the years, have shared with me their experiences and encouraged me to bring forward this legislation, supported by campaigning groups from across the country.
To turn those intentions into prospective legislation, one requires advice and support. I am grateful to officials and Ministers in the Home Office, including the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the current Home Secretary and her ministerial team.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), who has seen the Bill through its previous stages, is indisposed today. I want to put on record my thanks to her and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for very ably picking up the brief today and responding during the Report stage. I am grateful to him for that.
I thank the excellent Clerks of the House. In particular, I would like to single out the Clerk responsible for private Members’ Bills, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who does a tremendous job, supported by her very able colleagues. We are grateful for the advice that she has given.
Finally, I thank the no less able Whips on both sides, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). She has developed a reputation for sensing the mood of the House. In a House that can sometimes be a forum for contention, my hon. Friend has great skill in being able to bring us together on occasions such as this one.
Having put on record my thanks, I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Anne-Marie Griffiths was here earlier and she will be back, but we will ensure that she is aware of those kind words.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Ballot Secrecy Bill [Lords]
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 View all Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 15-I Marshalled list for Committee - (16 Nov 2022)
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I want to thank Lord Haywood for his tremendous work on the Bill and for sponsoring it in the other place. My notes say that it is largely because of him that the Bill is brought before us today for Third Reading. However, the truth is that it is almost entirely because of him that it is under consideration by us today.
I am grateful to the noble Lords of all parties in the other place who have worked together on the Bill. I am also grateful to the Ministers and the officials in the Department who have assisted its swift progress through both Houses.
The Bill is important to the integrity and democracy of our elections. It has cross-party support and it has been a great privilege for me to sponsor it in the House of Commons. I have spoken before about the importance and relevance of the Bill. It seeks to tackle the issue of family voting, when two or more people attempt to vote together in a polling booth, potentially leading to someone being intimidated or their decision being influenced. It is vital that voters cast their votes in secret. Once inside the polling station, no one should feel intimidated or be influenced by someone else on which way to vote, or whether to vote at all.
The Bill will clear up the powers that presiding officers have at polling stations and how they can better deal with the issue of family voting. Currently, those powers are unclear, which is partly why this issue has become so prominent. That is not a criticism of polling station staff members, but there is a grey area of what they can and cannot do if they witness offences such as family voting at polling stations.
This legislation will clear up the powers and responsibilities of presiding officers and polling station staff to prevent family voting from occurring. For those who do not think that this is a prominent issue, I will read out some statistics from a report by Democracy Volunteers on the May 2022 elections, which outlines how widespread family voting is. Some 1,723 polling stations were observed across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each observation lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, and family voting was witnessed at a staggering 25% of polling stations.
The problem is not exclusive to any one area and affects all of the United Kingdom, as is evident when we break the figures down further—21% in England, 42% in Northern Ireland, 19% in Scotland and 34% in Wales. The numbers in Northern Ireland are higher due to the elections for the Northern Irish Assembly requiring voters to elect several representatives rather than just one under the single transferable vote system. That can lead to people becoming confused and needing assistance. It is not a reflection of family voting being more prominent in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, family voting affects women the most.
The report states that more than 70% of those affected by family voting in the May 2022 elections were women. We must get a grip on this ugly practice. Women should not feel intimidated or have their vote influenced by anyone at a polling station. The report’s findings are truly concerning. It was even reported that staff at polling stations were reluctant to intervene when they saw it occurring—I reiterate that this is not a criticism of the great work that those staff do. Guidance on what they can and cannot do should be—and will now be —clearer.
Democracy Volunteers produced a report of Peterborough during the 2019 by-election, where family voting was witnessed at an astonishing rate of 48%. That impacts confidence in election results—no matter how unfairly, perhaps. It cannot be good for democracy. When I speak to different communities and constituents across Peterborough, I hear widespread support for the Bill. It will rectify the issue and tackle family voting at polling stations. It sets out the amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983. As a result, a person would commit an offence if they were with or near another person at a polling booth with the intent to influence that person in a particular way of voting or to refrain from voting. The word “intent” is important. It means that people who need help or assistance when voting due to disabilities can still receive it. It also means that parents accompanied by children standing alongside them are not committing a crime.
The people who practise family voting with an intent to intimidate and influence a person’s vote have no respect for the secret ballot. It is wholly inappropriate and is a rising threat to our democratic right to a secret ballot in the UK. We must uphold our values and traditions. Secret voting was introduced just over 150 years ago, in 1872, to tackle many bad practices in elections at that time. The Bill is a continuation of the idea that voting should be done secretly. It will give presiding officers the correct powers to tackle the problem then and there at the polling station. There is only room for one person and one mind at the ballot booth. This Bill will ensure that that is always the case, which makes it a crucial piece in updating and protecting our democracy.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill in the name of both my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and, as he rightly says, Lord Hayward in the other place, who has done a brilliant job over many years on electoral reform and ensuring that our ballots are cast fairly and properly.
It is a fundamental part of democracy that people can go to a polling booth if they are on the electoral register. They give their name, they show their polling card and they are issued with a ballot paper. No one should then influence them over which way they cast their vote. In my long experience serving in the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, we have witnessed that at first hand all too frequently: not just the influence of one man over one woman, but often a man over a whole family—and it can be a large family who go in, with the women and young men being told which way to vote.
In certain places, particularly London, we have elections on many different systems: we often have local elections the same day as a general election, and we have the London mayoral and assembly elections, where three ballot papers are issued at one time. There is potential for confusion and a need for clarification. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has outlined that it would not be an offence for someone to ask for help and assistance.
In my experience, presiding officers and clerks are always available to offer that help and assistance, particularly to those who have disabilities. They often go out of their way to come to the doors of a polling station if necessary, to assist someone who is disabled to register their vote properly. The problem arises when some people seek to influence others and make sure that they vote in a particular way, especially when it is against their will and they do not really want to do it.
The most important thing is that we safeguard the ballot in a free and fair way through this Bill, which I am sure will receive cross-party support. I know it was supported when I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee—albeit very briefly—and hon. Members want to ensure that it makes progress. In my borough, we pride ourselves on being very diverse. We have someone from every country on the planet, every religion, every race, every background, every language—you name it, we have it. People need to feel free when they go to vote, and to feel that their vote is going to count in the way that they wish it to.
However, I am afraid we have had many experiences of families coming together into polling stations and almost being forced to vote in a particular way. That cannot be right and it needs to change. Many may agree with the candidates they are voting for, but the most important thing is that family voting needs to be outlawed.
In supporting this Bill, I say to my hon. Friend that it clears up one issue of concern. The Government have taken action on preventing personation, and the requirement for identity cards and suchlike to be used at polling stations to prove that someone is the person entitled to cast the vote is an important reform. I look forward to that having a massive impact on stopping people from personating other individuals on the register.
My one concern is that we have seen rapid growth in the use of postal voting. I support this Bill completely, but, where large households register for and are sent postal votes, there is still the risk of those people being coerced into voting in a particular way, or—even worse—not even voting themselves, but just filling in the identity element, with the head of the household filling in the rest of the ballot papers before they are sent back. That is something we must think about if we wish to safeguard our democracy.
I will end there, because I know other colleagues wish to speak and we want other Bills to go through. Despite that note of caution, I warmly welcome this Bill, which will improve the secrecy and sanctity of our ballots.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and very sound colleague the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for promoting the Bill and Lord Hayward for his sterling work in the other place and his work on electoral reform issues over many, many years.
It is absolutely fundamental for democracy that elections are free and fair. Fraudulent voter intimidation or any other form of undue influence on our democracy is simply unacceptable. It is more important than ever that we foster trust in our political system and that the electoral process is above suspicion. Secret voting has been in place since the Ballot Act 1872. Our society rightly believes that it is up to individuals to decide how they will vote; it is not a decision for their family, for local leaders or for any other group to make.
Unfortunately, over recent years we have seen several high-profile cases of unscrupulous behaviour corrupting election results. This has damaged public confidence in the system. Although Tower Hamlets provides the clearest example in recent memory, the problem is by no means limited to any one part of the country. It has been going on for many years.
Having been a local resident in Calderdale at the time, I recall the shocking findings in Halifax during the 2010 general election, when Calderdale Council admitted that 763 postal votes from the Halifax constituency failed to match voter registration records. That prompted the local Conservative party to submit a lengthy dossier to West Yorkshire police, which highlighted a number of mis-practices that were then investigated. They included—but were by no means limited to—voter impersonation, bullying, multiple postal votes dispatched to empty properties, bogus voters and false registration. Much like in Tower Hamlets, I am afraid the police were far too slow to investigate the issues. Frankly, they were reluctant to get involved with what was incorrectly seen as a party political matter.
Lord Pickles rightly identified the practice of family voting as a specific concern in his 2016 review into electoral fraud, in which he recommended the strengthening of guidance and training. As recently as last year, as my hon. Friend pointed out, Democracy Volunteers, an impartial group that observes and reports on UK elections, suggested that family voting continues to be an issue and was witnessed in more than a quarter of the polling stations it visited.
I am particularly concerned that family voting and voter intimidation disproportionately affect women in Asian communities. A 2015 Manchester University paper for the Electoral Commission found evidence among interviewees in Pakistani and Bangladeshi-origin communities that hierarchical family structures often mean that women are expected to follow the lead of the head of the household. This creates additional family voting vulnerability, especially among ethnic minority households. That was also the conclusion of the Democracy Volunteers report on the Tower Hamlets election, which found:
“Those subjected to family voting…were invariably women…from the Asian community and those causing family voting were generally men”.
That absolutely runs contrary to British values. I am concerned that this is just one example of an issue to which cultural sensitivities and misplaced political correctness have frankly caused a blind eye to be turned for far too long.
By introducing a specific new offence, the Bill will clearly demonstrate our commitment to secret voting and will reaffirm an individual’s right to freely choose who they vote for. It will give our brilliant presiding officers more confidence to challenge any suspicious behaviour and, if necessary, involve the police. I believe this is where the Bill will have the most impact, by making it clear that individuals who accompany a voter to a polling booth, or who position themselves nearby with the intention of influencing a voter, will be breaking the law. By making this clear, and by giving presiding officers confidence, we will have the best chance of preventing family voting and ending undue influence at our polling stations. If these practices are not challenged at the polling station, they will simply continue. In passing this Bill, I hope the Electoral Commission will update its guidance to make clear to all concerned the importance of ending these practices once and for all.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on introducing this important Bill, because a private vote is at the heart of our democracy. Every citizen over the age of 18 is eligible to have their say, from electing a local councillor to national referendums. Without this basic principle, voters are exposed to the risk of bribery, blackmail and other forms of peer pressure and unfair influencing.
The current situation allows someone to enter the voting booth with another person. In some cases, this can lead to a voter being unduly influenced and coerced in how they vote. This practice may be used by a husband to instruct their wife on which way to vote, which is clearly unacceptable and flies in the face of what the suffragettes fought for more than 100 years ago. Women, and men, from every background have the right to vote for the candidate who best reflects their interest and, I dare say, this sometimes might not align with their husband’s interest.
I welcome the exception for children who enter a polling booth, as teaching our youngsters about the democratic process in such a hands-on way is vital to ensuring that they engage with democracy as they grow up. Similarly, there will always be those who require physical assistance with the voting process but, in making sure that we maintain the strength of our democracy and represent all our constituents and their needs, I warmly welcome this Bill and the support it will provide in ensuring the right to a free and private vote.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for introducing this Bill, as it is vital that we protect the secret ballot as part of our democracy.
As is often the case with private Members’ Bills, I have come to understand an area of our law and history that I previously did not understand so well. We take the secret ballot for granted, but we have not always had it. Previously, people had to declare for whom they had voted, and they were subjected to all kinds of harassment, intimidation and bullying by, for example, their landowner or employer to vote a particular way. The first attempt to introduce a secret ballot was made in 1853 by Thomas Thompson, the Radical MP. The issue gained more traction in the 1860s, with the secret ballot being established in the 1870s. It has been a fundamental part of our electoral process ever since.
Members have spoken about the importance of the secret ballot in preventing people from being intimidated or pressed to vote in a particular way but, of course, it is also important because it reduces the chance of a voter being bribed. Our vote cannot be bought if we cannot show how we voted. There are two facets to the secret vote.
We have covered some of the other changes made to our voting system since the introduction of the secret ballot. There are other things on which we need to work, but I welcome this Bill because the secret ballot is such a fundamental part of our democracy. My hon. Friend spoke about the fantastic work done by Democracy Volunteers. As MPs, we see how, in all sorts of ways, our communities and civic life are improved by volunteers, and voting is no different. I have learned today that voting is another area in which volunteers play an important role.
My hon. Friend mentioned that more than 200 people across the nation volunteered to take part in the research, which gives us a powerful insight and shows that this is not a small or one-off issue but is widespread. Twenty-five per cent. of the observations found this practice was taking place, which demonstrates how important it is that we do everything we can to ensure privacy in the polling booth. It cannot be easy for the people who work at the polling station, and we are very sensitive to the fact that people in the polling booth should feel comfortable and respected. It would feel uncomfortable to be approached, or to be interacted with in any way, in the polling booth, and this Bill will give staff the confidence and legal clarity they need to tackle these issues. This is not about blaming them, as it is not their fault, but they will need a lot of support to be able to intervene in what is a very sensitive area.
I welcome the exceptions in this Bill. We all have constituents who would physically struggle to make that journey to the polling booth. Yes, we can encourage them to take up the offer of a postal vote, but we also know that some people absolutely want to make that journey, no matter how difficult that might be physically for them. This is important, so I welcome the exception that has been made. If even a single person is having their vote influenced in this way, we should do everything that we can to stop it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for introducing the Bill and to my friend, Lord Hayward, who is in the Gallery, for taking it through in the Lords. I am glad that we have made progress today, and I look forward to the Bill being passed.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I rise in support of the Bill, which, as a by-election winner, holds a special place in my heart. That is not only because my noble friend, Lord Hayward, was the chair of my selection meeting, where his passion and knowledge of electoral matters was clear to all of us, but, as we have heard already, because it was during a by-election more than 150 years ago, in 1872, that a secret ballot was first used. This followed the Ballot Act 1872, which made provisions for every elector to be entitled to mark the ballot paper without being seen by anyone else.
The principle of the secret ballot is the bedrock of our system and an essential democratic principle. It is therefore unacceptable that there are some cases that undermine that principle, namely through family voting, where, as we have heard already, a voter is accompanied by another person into or near a polling booth with the intention of influencing their vote. I welcome the fact that the Bill introduces an important and specific new offence for individuals who accompany a voter to a polling booth, or position themselves nearby with the intention of influencing a voter.
I also welcome the fact that the Bill does not apply to, first, a companion of a disabled voter who has made the required written declaration to allow them to assist a disabled voter, and, secondly, to a child of a voter accompanying them to the polling station. I am sure that I am not the only Member in this Chamber today who, as a child, went with their parents when they voted—I can remember it well. In my case, I went with my mum, who is hugely passionate about women exercising their hard-earned right to vote, and who instilled this passion in me, which is one of the main reasons why I support the Bill. Thankfully, for me, my mother also votes for me in person, but I do not unduly influence her. [Interruption.] Or so she tells me, yes.
As Democracy Volunteers discovered, more than 70% of those being affected by family voting were women. Further to that, I welcome the fact that the Bill also provides our brilliant polling station officers and presiding officers across the country with the clarity and support that is needed effectively to act on these issues when they occur.
The Government are committed to protecting our democracy against those who seek to harm it, which was demonstrated by the Elections Act 2022. I welcome the fact that the provisions in the Bill complement that important work. Voter fraud remains a serious issue, particularly in parts of London and, as we have heard, particularly around postal voting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has already highlighted. We need to come back to that matter and do all we can to stop voter fraud.
Bob Blackman
As a fellow London MP, my hon. Friend will know that we have multi-member constituencies, particularly for local elections. That can lead to confusion in voters’ minds. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the guidance tells people how many votes they have and how they should cast them?
Mr French
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Some of the clarification and changes, particularly around the mayoral elections in London, will help with that clarity for voters and the voting public.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend for steering the Bill through the House and ensuring that our democracy receives the protection that it deserves. I also applaud him for that fantastic new suit that he has worn today to deliver that. I pay tribute to Lord Hayward again for his tenacity in pursuing this issue, which is a reflection of his passion and expertise in our democracy and other electoral matters, and I am pleased to support the Bill.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for ably taking up this Bill on behalf of Lord Haywood, whom I also commend for all his work, including on this Bill.
The integrity of our elections is essential to our democracy. We must ensure that people have faith in the electoral process, and this Bill is another step towards strengthening our existing voting laws, by safeguarding the secrecy of voting in our elections. This Bill will tackle concerns about so-called “family voting”. We have a secret ballot for a reason. The fact that current rules allow someone to be accompanied into a polling booth, out of sight of the poll clerk, and potentially influenced into voting a particular way, drives a coach and horses through the whole idea of ballot secrecy. This Bill strikes me as an entirely common-sense reform.
There should be no need for voters to go into the polling booth with someone else, unless they have gone through the formal process of requesting the assistance of a companion due to a disability or inability to read or write. I am pleased that this Bill does nothing to disenfranchise voters who may need assistance, ensuring that disabled voters and voters unable to read will continue to be entitled to assistance necessary to exercise their vote. Indeed, section 9 of the Elections Act 2022 includes provision for
“such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for…persons to vote independently”.
That extends the very narrow and prescriptive provisions that preceded it.
I am pleased that both the Government and the Opposition have been supporting this Bill, which will deliver measures to eliminate voter fraud and voter control. Ahead of the local elections, which we are swiftly approaching, we all have a duty, as parliamentarians, to encourage democratic participation. Having served on the Bill Committee for the 2022 Act, I welcome the measures the Government have taken to guarantee the security of the ballot. I also pay tribute to the excellent campaign being run by the Electoral Commission to make voters aware of the new requirement for photo ID in order to vote, which takes effect in May’s local elections. Finally, I am delighted to support my hon. Friend’s Bill and I look forward to it passing its Third Reading.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my congratulations to Lord Haywood on initiating this important Bill in the other place and on securing its progress so far. If it is successful—I think we can have complete confidence in that success—it will be the first private Member’s Bill in several years to start in the other place and make it on to the statute book. That will be no mean achievement and I know that we will get a decisive step closer to that goal today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on his leadership of this legislation in its proceedings in the Commons and on the case he has ably made for his Bill today and in previous sittings.
Significant contributions were also made by other Conservative Members. I want to cover the point made by the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) about disability in a moment, because it is such an important point—let me associate myself with the comments they made about its importance.
First, however, I wish to deal with something that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said in an intervention. He always has interesting points to make on our democracy and how it runs, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, as he knows. The one he made about guidance is so important—guidance is always important. We are all saying today that voting is an individual act, a “private act”, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) characterised it. If that is the case, we have to make it easy to do, so that, in general, a person would not need to solicit support because the guidance is so clear and things are obvious.
I am less of a fan of the more complicated and novel systems of election, but sometimes there may be multiple candidates and that does get tricky. When the single transferable vote is used, people wonder whether to vote in the first column or the second column—that can get tricky. It is up to the regulators and, obviously, the leadership in this place, to make sure that that guidance is so clear. That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) about the staff working in the polling stations, as we need things to be easy for them too. We cannot now have a significant range of burdens, or even tensions or anxieties, for them in respect of having to become enablers and supporters of votes; they do not want to be going anywhere near those booths either. The guidance has to be really clear, both for the individuals and for the staff we ask to administer those elections.
I wish to make a point or two of my own, but I am pleased that there is such consensus on this issue. As the hon. Member for Peterborough said, this is fundamentally a point about clarity. No matter how well established the spirit of the Ballot Act may be, 151 years later there is a lack of clarity, and the Bill adds that clarity. Our democratic processes must be free from intimidation and—a point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—free from inducement as well. That was the spirit of the Act which put into law the secret ballot that we enjoy to this day. In one fell swoop, it put an end to the egregious practices of landowners and employers influencing their workers’ or tenants’ votes.
However, a clear and identifiable problem remains with the Act: it does not give presiding officers the right tools to fully tackle the problem of people being compelled to vote in one particular way, or indeed not at all, by others. Those practices are always unacceptable, but they do happen, and this is the moment for us to act to end them. Intimidation of this kind goes against all our democratic principles, but there is an ambiguity, which the Electoral Commission has highlighted, so the case for change is clear.
In the other place, the Government provided important reassurances about the continuation of any assistance that disabled voters may need in order to vote. That is right and proper, and I am glad that it will not be affected by the Bill. As we heard from my hon. Friend for Darlington (Peter Gibson), there was a “build-out” for this in the Elections Act 2022. Nevertheless, I think that, as far as humanly possible, we should collectively seek to render this moot by providing appropriate assistive technologies enabling disabled people to vote independently, which would remove the need for another person to be there.
In Committee I mentioned the My Vote My Voice campaign, which aims to improve participation in voting by adults with learning disabilities and/or autism, as well as campaign groups representing deaf people, blind people, people living with Usher syndrome, and deaf-blind people more generally. They want the right technologies and support to ensure that as many people as possible—indeed, virtually everyone—can vote, and vote independently. That should be our aspiration. As I have said, the Elections Act has moved us in the right direction, but I suspect that we will need to monitor the success of its provisions and those of the Bill, and I dare say we may need to go further still in the fullness of time.
Notwithstanding those points, the Opposition welcome the Bill and are glad to support it today. It is vital for us to have clear law in this area, with no ambiguity about what is and what is not acceptable practice at polling stations, and the Bill constitutes an important step towards ensuring that happens.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box today to set out the Government’s full support for the Bill, which makes important changes to tackle so-called family voting. We have had an excellent debate, and it is a pleasure to see so much cross-party support for legislation of this kind. All of us are here because of the integrity of our democratic process. It is lovely to have consensus on issues such as this, as we sometimes do, particularly on Fridays.
The Bill seeks to enhance the integrity of voting at elections and to safeguard our democracy against those who would harm it, and I therefore welcome the progress that it has made in both Houses. Today gives us an excellent chance to see it speed its way towards the statute book. The new offence will be a hugely important addition to the various other measures, arising from the Elections Act 2022, that the Government are implementing to protect our electoral system against those who would undermine it.
As other Members have mentioned, the Government tabled a number of amendments to the Bill during its Committee stage in the other place in order to address issues with its specific drafting. Those amendments were designed to prevent the offence from criminalising innocent behaviour, particularly when two people are at a polling booth, so that only the one intending to influence the other is caught. The original drafting would have inadvertently caused the victim of the coercion to have also committed an offence. The amendments were also designed to secure exceptions for companions of disabled electors so that they could continue to be able to provide assistance if necessary. They were agreed to in the other place, and no further amendments have been tabled in either House.
It gives me great pleasure to thank all the parliamentarians who have engaged with the Bill, both in this place and the other place. I thank my noble Friend Lord Hayward, who I can see in the Gallery. He has been instrumental in driving forward the legislation by sharing his knowledge and experience on electoral matters and sponsoring the Bill in the other place. I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for his expertise and for setting out so well—both today and in his Westminster Hall debate—the need for this important piece of legislation.
It has been a huge pleasure to hear speeches from many Members today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). It falls to me to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who responded for the Government in the earlier debate, and other Members who have given this legislation the benefit of their scrutiny, including my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who aided the legislation along the way—it is strange not to see him in his place; we are all poorer without him.
Peter Gibson
The Minister may or may not be aware that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is celebrating his birthday tomorrow. Will she join me and everyone else in this House in congratulating him?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend has done me a huge service, allowing me to say a very hearty “Happy birthday” to the hon. Member for Strangford, who I also understand has tabled an early-day motion to thank Dolly Parton. I suppose it is probably quite unconventional to support an EDM from the Dispatch Box, but if you will make an exception in the spirit of the occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday and hope that he is serenaded by Dolly Parton—I cannot think of anything better.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution in Committee, and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for their interest in and engagement with the Bill.
I also thank my officials at the Department for Levelling Up, my private secretary James Selby, and the policy team—namely, Peter Richardson and Guy Daws—for their tireless work in supporting the Bill. I know how much effort they have put into ensuring that it proceeds smoothly. I am very grateful to His Majesty’s official Opposition, particularly the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for all the work that they have done to support the Bill.
The Government take the integrity of our electoral system extremely seriously. We warmly welcome the changes being made, which will make such an important contribution to strengthening the integrity of voting. The Bill will ensure that there is clarity in the law so that presiding officers have the confidence to challenge inappropriate behaviour where it occurs and to stamp down on any opportunity for coercion to take place at our elections. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Paul Bristow
With the leave of the House, I rise again—all too briefly—to thank once again my noble Friend Lord Hayward for all his efforts to get us to this stage. His passion for and dedication to this issue have been evident for some time, and it has been a real honour to stand with him and bring this piece of legislation to where it is.
I also thank Councillors Sandy Tanner and Peter Golds, who advised me on the Bill. They are passionate about this issue and have been a vital source of advice. I thank the Minister for all her efforts, and the Ministers at DLUHC for all their support and guidance. I thank the shadow Front-Bench team and the Opposition for their support. This is a cross-party issue, and it is absolutely crucial that we make that completely clear.
I also thank the hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee. It was quite an experience trying to go around and drum up support for it, and I thank everyone who did that and who has contributed to this debate. I thank the Clerks and officials, and the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for their guidance.
This is quite an historic occasion. It is my understanding that it is very rare to see a private Member’s Bill instigated in the other place become law—it has been some years since that last happened. Again, the fact that we are at the point where the Bill is likely to become law is testament to the leadership and passion shown by my noble Friend Lord Hayward. It has been a pleasure to be part of this—we are seeing an element of history. I hope that we can now protect our democracy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 View all Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted that we are here today to take a further step forward towards introducing a new right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have spoken of the importance of introducing this new right to tackle one-sided flexibility. Although zero-hours contracts are an important part of the UK’s flexible labour market, the 2017 Taylor review of modern working practices found that workers on zero-hours contracts, as well as agency and temporary workers, struggle when flexibility is one-sided in an employer’s favour.
Some employers misuse flexible working arrangements by scheduling or cancelling shifts with very little notice, leading to insecurity of hours and income for workers or, in the case of temporary agency workers, dismissal at short notice. Short-notice changes to working patterns can be hugely disruptive to workers’ lives, for example when they are juggling caring or childcare responsibilities. One-sided flexibility can also create an unfair imbalance of power between workers and their employers, leaving workers afraid to ask their employer for more predictable terms and conditions, out of fear of being dismissed or denied future shifts. One-sided flexibility is particularly pressing at a time when so many workers with unpredictable working patterns are feeling the pressure of household living bills rising so acutely.
The introduction of a new right to request a predictable working pattern will empower workers to start a conversation with their employer about their working patterns. It will not only benefit zero-hours contract workers, because agency and temporary workers will also be able to take advantage of the new right. A qualifying worker will be able to make requests if their existing working pattern lacks predictability in the hours or times they work, or if it is a fixed-term contract for less than 12 months.
The Bill will not only benefit workers. On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) aptly described the right to request a more predictable working pattern as a “win-win” for workers and employers. The new right will boost worker satisfaction and productivity, and allow employers to retain skilled staff. It is vital that we maintain the flexibility that zero-hours contracts facilitate for businesses and workers, which is why workers will be able to choose to continue working on a zero-hours contract, or in another form of less predictable work, if that is what works best for them.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in certain cases, particularly for the likes of students, for example, it is more desirable to have greater flexibility regarding when they can work around their studies?
Scott Benton
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Whether it be for students who perhaps have different working patterns and ability to work shifts compared with other workers, or the rest of the general workforce, zero-hours contracts are here to stay. They are an important part of the flexible working market, and rightly so, but they have to work not only for the employer but for the worker. This positive step forward allows those who are working flexible hours to request a more predictable working pattern. As I will explain, the business or employer in question does not necessarily have to accept the request, if for example it is too burdensome on the business. The Bill is a moderate and positive step forward that works for both employer and worker.
The right to request a more predictable working pattern will function in a similar way to the right to request flexible working. For example, an employer will be able to refuse a request for a more predictable working pattern on specific statutory grounds similar to those established for flexible working. I appreciate how important it is to balance new rights for workers with their impact on businesses; these grounds will act as a safeguard, ensuring that employers do not experience disproportionate burdens. My Bill will introduce that important new right and ensure that it can be properly enforced.
The clauses set out the eligibility criteria for the new right, and ensure that as many workers as possible who have an unpredictable working pattern can benefit from it. All workers who have worked for their employer for a set period before making their application will be eligible. That period will be specified in regulations, but is expected to be 26 weeks. Given that my Bill targets workers with unpredictable working patterns, they will not be required to have worked for their employer continuously during that period.
Specific provisions will be made for agency workers, given the unique way that their working relationship with their employer functions. For example, agency workers who make applications directly to hirers will be required to have worked for their hirer for at least 12 weeks continuously during the proposed 26-week period. That replicates a provision in the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 that states that after 12 weeks’ continuous service, an agency worker will gain entitlement to the same set of employment rights that they would have had if they had been recruited directly. That ensures that workers cannot use the right to request a more predictable working pattern to circumvent the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and gain entitlement to additional employment rights before they have worked for 12 continuous weeks.
Employers’ responsibilities are also clearly set out. That supports employers when they receive a request and ensures that workers know what they should expect from their employer. Employers must deal with requests in a reasonable manner and notify the worker of their decision within a month. My Bill details the grounds on which workers may make a complaint to an employment tribunal. That protects workers if their employer does not consider their request in a reasonable manner, wrongly treats the application as withdrawn, dismisses or treats a worker poorly because of their request, or rejects an application on the basis of incorrect facts.
Workers will be permitted to make two requests for predictable working per year. That recognises that workers’ and businesses’ circumstances can change. This mirrors the number of flexible working requests that will be allowed under the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Together, my Bill’s clauses will create an important new right to request a more predictable working pattern, and will carefully balance the needs of workers in unpredictable work and their employers.
I thank the Minister for confirming the Government’s continued support for the Bill, which of course delivers a Conservative election manifesto pledge. I am delighted to see such broad support for my Bill from across the House, and I thank all hon. Members who share my desire to ensure that the Bill proceeds to the other place, so that we can take a positive step forward for working people.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I rise in support of the Bill, which injects important clarity about zero-hours contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) is correct to say that zero-hours contracts are here to stay and occupy an important role in the British labour market. They can certainly offer a degree of flexibility to students; to older workers who want complete flexibility when it comes to their hours; and to people with caring responsibilities, particularly parents. For example, one of the advantages of the bank model in the NHS, which is effectively a zero-hours contract by another name, is that people can take school holidays without having to apply to their boss and request the time off in the usual way.
I understand why zero-hours contracts are attractive, but we have to be honest: they exist in a grey zone between full employment rights and independent contractor status. We know that they have caused particular problems, which is why the Government have already legislated to ban exclusivity clauses where they applied. Some really high-profile cases about the contested grey zone, including the Uber case and the Deliveroo case, have reached the Supreme Court: are people independent contractors or workers with basic rights?
The Bill includes an inherent requirement that there be a right to request terms in the zero-hours arrangement that give some predictability. Whatever the advantages of flexible working, we know that some employers use zero-hours contracts on a quasi-exploitative basis. I have read grim stories in the newspapers, albeit not recently, of people travelling a long way by bus only to arrive at their employer’s gates and be told that there was no work for them that day. That is clearly not an acceptable situation.
The Bill would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 1 of that Act requires that within the first two weeks of employment all employers must provide an employment contract that sets out the days workers are required to work, the rate at which they will be remunerated, what they will be paid and when, what their basic duties are and what overtime they will get. At the heart of all employment relationships is the requirement that people who come to work have a basic idea of what is expected of them, how they will be paid and what they are reasonably expected to do. Even in this grey zone, with all the flexibility that I otherwise support, it cannot be right to allow a system to exist in which people have no idea from week to week and from day to day whether they will be required to work and, if so, how much.
Another important point of employment law is that, while of course it is correct that an employer can consider what it requires its members of staff to do and that it can set their duties and working hours, it does not have the unilateral right to vary the employment contract in any other context. It therefore seems to me right that, where reasonably possible, a worker should have the right to request predictability. The burden should be on the employer either to say, “Yes, we can offer you some predictability, and here is what it looks like”—something that would come pretty close to a standard contract of employment—or to say, “Such is the nature of our work that predictability is impossible in any circumstance.” That would at least give the worker the opportunity to know whether or not they could begin to plan their life around the job. That approach is a counterpoint to some of the exploitative practices that linger at the uglier end of the zero-hours contract world. For that reason, I support it, and I support this private Member’s Bill.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I support the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) on guiding its passage through the House. It is fantastic to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who always does such a good job of outlining the complexities and ins and outs of employment law. She has made huge contributions to other debates and has done so again today.
The position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South demonstrates the Conservative approach to the issue. We have heard again and again from the Labour party—I think this is still its current policy—that we must ban zero-hours contracts. Actually, as students I and many others benefited from access to zero-hours contracts and the flexibility to fit things in as we liked. We know that they are also hugely important in the NHS for people who may want to do a lot of hours one week and fewer hours the next. There is always a balance to be struck, and it may be helpful for the NHS that there is a balance between permanent staff and flexible staff.
I want to emphasise that the right way to approach things, rather than banning these contracts, is to do what we are doing: look at how we can advance the law in smaller ways to make the overall position better. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution, which edges forward a situation that can be improved but certainly should not be banned.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I also start by welcoming the Bill brought by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). As a Member of this House representing one of the most deprived constituencies in the country, which is not unlike my own, he too will know the role that bad pay, long hours and few rights play in trapping working people in a constant cycle of poverty and deprivation and entrenching poverty in his constituency—again, not unlike many constituencies up and down the country.
I am glad this Bill to address one of the biggest challenges faced by working people is finally reaching its conclusion today. I am glad the Government have supported the Bill through its passage. Given the negligible trickle of Bills that relate to the employment rights of working people have come before the House during their more than a decade in office—unless, of course, they concern taking rights away through their anti-trade union restrictions—in contrast with the recent flood of employment rights legislation proposed from the Back Benches, it would seem that the Government have suddenly discovered the exploitation suffered by working people. But that is not the case.
At the end of 2019—well over three years ago—the Government promised to introduce an employment Bill, which many, including Labour MPs, hoped would address the exploitation of working people and would help create an economy and workforce fit for the modern day. We warned the Government years ago, long before even the 2015 general election, about the exploitation of those on zero-hours contracts and in the gig economy. Trade unions have been banging on the Government’s door urging for stronger protection for workers in a changing economy. We know full well that the Government knew of the hardships created for working people because of zero-hours contracts, so pleading ignorance is no defence for their failure to act. In fact, there is no defence at all.
Imran Hussain
Yes, it absolutely is, and I will go on to clarify that in my remarks. The Government’s only excuse for their refusal to tackle the exploitation of working people before their support for this Bill is that Ministers were too busy hailing the alleged benefits of being on zero-hours contracts. The reality is that the advantages of these contracts asserted by the Government are frankly alien to people on them. What they face is no utopia of flexibility, but a prison of exploitation by bad bosses at worst or a world of uncertainty at best. As has been pointed out during the passage of the Bill, people are often compelled to accept shifts that they do not want—and so they struggle to work—because they know that if they turn them down, they may not get any hours at all in future.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member says, and I note his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan). My Aberconwy constituency is known for its tourism, hospitality and all that comes with that, including shift working. The reality for many residents in my constituency is that zero-hours contracts give them flexibility to juggle family and other commitments and to balance a range of employment. Does he accept there is some virtue of this model for some people some of the time at least?
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is known for the things he has said. He will appreciate there is a huge difference between shift working and zero-hours contracts. Those are two very different concepts, and I do not think anybody is arguing against shift working. Equally, nobody is saying there should be no flexibility. I accept that in a minority of situations—perhaps, for example, in the case of students, as was mentioned earlier—there may need to be that flexibility.
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—I will cover this later as well—the reality is that over the past decade we have gone from around 150,000 people on zero-hours contracts to more than 1 million, as the Minister will know. To suggest that the majority of those people somehow benefit from some flexibility in zero-hours contracts—or some of the points that the Minister may outline later—is just not true.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is not true that a majority of people like that relationship, but surveys show that some 64% of people do not want more hours. He would ban zero-hours contracts, even though 64% of people want them. Where is the sense in that?
Imran Hussain
I will refer the Minister to another survey. By far the most over-represented groups of people on zero-hours contracts are women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Minister quotes statistics, but in the current market people who have a choice between zero-hours contracts or no work at all are a different case altogether.
Dr Mullan
As this is obviously a strongly felt position from the Labour party, I assume that there is not a single Labour-led local authority employing people on zero-hours contracts. If the hon. Gentleman cannot confirm that, will he write to me and explain what steps he will take with his Labour local authority leadership figures to ensure that they do not make use of these contracts, which the Labour party clearly feels are immoral?
Imran Hussain
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is political point scoring on a very serious issue. The fact remains, and this is perhaps where he could direct his energies, that his Government ordered the Taylor review more than five years ago, the findings of which were published in their “Good Work Plan” in 2018. Where has he been for the past few years not questioning his own Government on why they are failing working people, and frankly, why they have failed those being exploited by zero-hours contracts until today? That is perhaps the question he should be asking.
People on zero-hours contracts often face having the shifts they had planned and budgeted for cancelled, leaving them unable to make their bills add up at the end of the month. They are often offered shifts at short notice, forcing them to go to great expense to arrange childcare and transport. As I set out on Second Reading, when the Conservative party came to power, just over 150,000 people were employed on zero-hours contracts. At the last count, more than 1 million were employed on them according to the Office for National Statistics.
As the Bill recognises, for a small group of people who are okay with varying shift patterns and do not face significant outgoings, the contracts may fit better, but let us not kid ourselves: the flexibility of zero-hours contracts is flexibility for the employer, not for working people. As I have mentioned, it is also not as though the Government have never had a chance to improve the rights of working people before this Bill today. They commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out a review on modern working practices and then accepted his recommendations in full as far back as 2018, but rather than implementing the recommendations, they sat on the review instead. Many of them, including recommendation 13 to allow workers on zero-hours contracts
“a right to request a contract that better reflects the hours they work”,
have gone unfulfilled. That is, until the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) introduced his Bill last year, four years on from the Taylor review.
That lack of progress in implementing the Taylor review’s recommendations almost five years later is lamentable for us, but is devastating for those working people who would be helped by the greater security at work that the recommendations would provide. It is right that the hon. Member’s Bill addresses that issue to some degree. We therefore support the Government in ensuring that this Bill and Bills like it get on to the statute book, because long overdue as it is, it is a step in the right direction towards stronger rights and better protections for an overexploited workforce. However, I cannot let the opportunity of today’s debate go by without asking whether Government support would have been quite so forthcoming had it not been for the relentless pressure they have faced from our trade unions, which have long campaigned for zero-hours contract workers to get the protections they need and deserve.
Although it has taken this Conservative Government years to take some form of action on strengthening workers’ rights by supporting the private Members’ Bills brought by several hon. Members, rather than by introducing their own employment Bill, the next Labour Government will not be so timid. As set out by the leader of the Labour party—the next Prime Minister—within the first 100 days of taking office, a Labour Government will bring legislation to the Floor of the House to begin to deliver our groundbreaking new deal for working people, which will ensure that our economy is fit for the 21st century and will transform the rights and protections afforded to ordinary working people for the better. That includes stronger protections for those on zero-hours contracts, with a ban on contracts without a minimum number of guaranteed hours and the right to a contract reflecting hours normally worked, and a requirement for employers to provide reasonable notice of shift changes, with wages paid in full to workers whose shifts are cancelled without notice, so they are no longer left to shoulder the burden and suffer the costs of unexpected last-minute changes.
Kevin Hollinrake
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for all his work. He has been a delight to work with all the way through and I have been delighted to support his Bill through its various stages. I reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill.
It has been encouraging to observe the support for the Bill from across the House. I was pleased to hear that reflected once again in this debate, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who represents part of the fine city of Bradford, in my county of Yorkshire.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South pointed out, zero-hours contracts are an important part of the UK’s flexible labour market, for both employers and individuals who may need to balance work around other commitments. We believe they play an important role, and 64% of people surveyed said they do not want more hours and that they are happy with the basis of their current contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) pointed out, Labour is determined to take that option away from people, which once again illustrates that the Government believe in freedom of choice while the Opposition believe in state diktat.
Around 3% of workers in the UK workforce are on zero-hours contracts and such contracts may offer many of those individuals the kind of flexibility they want, but, of course, we are determined to tackle unfair working practices used by a small minority of employers. I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who speaks in this House with such authority on employment matters, given her background. Many of those employers take advantage of what she describes, quite rightly, as “a grey zone”. Workers may be left waiting on standby for work that never materialises, unsure whether they will receive the hours they need to pay their bills.
We have already made significant progress in bringing forward measures that support individuals on zero-hours contracts and in low-paid work. In 2015, we banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts; in December 2022, we extended the ban to workers who have a guaranteed weekly income equivalent to or below the lower earnings limit of £123 per week; and on 1 April, we will increase the national living wage by 9.7%, to £10.42 per hour.
Mr French
In reference to the comments made by the shadow Minister, does the Minister agree with me that the Labour party’s words on sticking up for workers are rather hollow, particularly when they support the Labour Mayor of London’s ultra low emission zone expansion and tax rise, which will impact over 850,000 drivers in London and have been described as “anti-worker” by Unite the union?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is a fine champion on that issue; I would describe the measure as anti-worker and also anti-business, particularly at a time when we are all seeing cost of living challenges. It is simply the wrong measure to take and I applaud him for his constant campaigning on it.
The Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South represents a further step towards addressing one-sided flexibility, as he says. In 2018, the Government consulted on the right to request predictable working and in 2019 we committed to introducing a right to request a more predictable contract in our manifesto. That militates against the hon. Member for Bradford East’s argument that we have suddenly discovered this concern. We have always committed ourselves to legislating in this area.
The new right to request a more predictable working pattern will apply to all eligible workers, not only those on zero-hours contracts, meaning that a wide range of workers who have unpredictable working conditions will benefit, including temporary workers, agency workers and workers with non-guaranteed hours. Crucially, that is a right to request more predictable hours, not a right to insist on them, because we also need to look after the interests of businesses in this conversation.
My hon. Friend’s Bill includes a list of eight specific grounds on which any employer may decline a request, similar to those established for the existing right to request flexible working—for example, if the costs of providing a worker with a more predictable pattern would be too burdensome, or if accepting a request would have a detrimental impact on the ability to meet customer demand.
The Bill forms part of a wider package of six private Member’s Bills on employment rights that the Government are supporting. I pay tribute to the businesses and business representative groups that have supported them, despite the obvious impact on businesses—if hon. Members have read the impact assessment, they will know the additional impact on business is £16.9 million, at a difficult time for them, so we should pay tribute to businesses that are willing to take on these extra duties.
The hon. Member for Bradford East talked about a ban on zero-hours contracts. I gently ask whether he is doing that in the full and certain knowledge of the costs on business, because I have not seen a figure from Labour to say what would be the cost to business of doing that. That is a reasonable concern that businesses may have about the extra costs of doing business under a potential Labour Government.
Taken as a package, these Bills will deliver on our 2019 manifesto commitments to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. They will help new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers.
Before I close, I want to thank the officials who have worked on this Bill: Sasha Ward, Bex Lowe, Lizzy Blakeman, Mel Thomas, Sarah Boulton-Jones, Louis Ariss, Laura Robinson, Richard Kelly, Adrienn SzNagy, Rose Jefferies and Dan Spillman and, from my private office, Cora Sweet. I commend the Bill to the House.
Scott Benton
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), with all her knowledge and experience in this particular area, gave a characteristically compelling speech in favour of the Bill. She was entirely correct to shine a light on some of the murkier practices that I am afraid are out there on zero-hours contracts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) is a superb advocate for blue-collar Conservatism and articulated that, as Conservatives, we can advance workers’ rights—and rightly so—while also recognising that both the employer and the worker are often quite happy with the existing arrangements around zero-hours contracts. I was interested to hear him ask how many Labour-run councils across the country actually utilise zero-hours contracts.
I am afraid that in 2020, at the height of covid, Labour-run Blackpool Council in my own constituency dismissed dozens of zero-hours contract workers who worked in leisure centres. The circumstances around their dismissal left a particularly nasty taste in the mouth at the height of a pandemic when those families were particularly struggling. I am also interested to hear that protecting such workers remains a Labour manifesto commitment, but I suggest that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) communicates to Labour council leaders around the country that they need to up their game and practice what they preach on this issue.
I would, however, like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his support throughout the passage of the Bill. He alluded to the fact that my constituency is particularly deprived, given its reliance on the tourism and leisure sectors. My constituency will probably benefit from the Bill more than most, given the higher number of zero-hours contracts in the tourism industry in Blackpool. I know his constituency well, having grown up very close to it, and I know that his constituents will also disproportionately benefit from the Bill due to the specific labour conditions in and around Bradford.
As ever, I would like to place on record my considerable thanks not only to the brilliant Minister, but his fantastic private office team who have been an absolute joy to work with throughout the passage of the Bill. The Minister rightly articulated that it is this Conservative Government who have taken so many steps over the last 13 years to improve workers’ rights, not least delivering on this private Member’s Bill, which, as the Minister articulated, was a manifesto commitment of this party. I am always proud to defend this Government’s record in my constituency, not least on the way we have supported working people and helped to take so many of them out of poverty since 2010. No doubt the Bill will be a further step on that journey.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to promote the Bill on Third Reading. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I must start by thanking those from across the veteran community, including many of my own constituents, supportive charities and organisations for their support and insights during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I would also like to thank Members from across the House who have supported the Bill to this stage, many of whom have a service background. In particular, the recent work of the all-party parliamentary group for veterans highlighted the urgency of the reforms proposed today. At a time when politics can seem more polarised, it is heartening that there has been a real sense of unity in ensuring that we care for those who have given so much to protect us. I am grateful for the cross-party support the Bill has received. I am also grateful for the comments, support and encouragement of colleagues who are members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, again a very worthwhile cross-party initiative, who have brought thoughtful comments and encouragement from all parts of the House during the passage of the Bill.
The Government are determined to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world to be a veteran and I am proud that the Bill will help to realise that vision.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am very pleased to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. He mentions the importance of this country as a place for veterans. Does the Bill extend to overseas veterans who served in the British armed forces?
Robin Millar
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a very apposite question, because of course many of our veterans live overseas. However, the Bill deals with veterans and their family members who reside within the UK, so at this time it is limited to veterans who are within the UK. For veterans overseas who have concerns or questions about services and access to support, I would direct them to their local embassy or consulate, which will be able to help them.
The Bill will help to regularise the provision of support to veterans and their families. It gives Ministers the flexibility to adapt the support that has been made available to this community as circumstances change.
Former servicemen and women represent about one in 25 of our fellow citizens. In fact, my constituency sits within the county of Conwy in Wales, which has the highest proportion of veterans of any Welsh county. It has been a real privilege to meet and to listen to those veterans across Aberconwy. Last Saturday there was a roundtable in my office of a diverse range of veterans from all ranks and parts of our armed forces. It was fascinating and humbling to hear their accounts of life as a veteran and their transition into that life from their time in service.
It is no exaggeration to say that I have been inspired by the work of local charities and community groups, both those across the UK and in my own constituency. Alabaré’s Homes for Veterans is one that I have visited, where I talked with veterans about the challenges they have faced in access to housing and coming to terms with what we would consider normal civilian life. For someone coming out of the highly organised, particular culture of the armed forces, that can present a significant challenge.
Danny Kruger
I pronounce Alabaré differently—I had it out with them last week because it is a difficult word. It is an amazing organisation and has a number of houses in my constituency in Wiltshire, where there is a significant veteran population. Does my hon. Friend agree that the crucial thing is proper liaison with the local authority, which in Wiltshire I pay tribute to for its support for veterans. Demand is very significant, and there is only so much that the NGOs and the third sector can do. It is important that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, such charities and local authorities work together on homelessness.
Robin Millar
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an extremely relevant contribution. Perhaps I could argue that my pronunciation is a Welsh one, but I will not go there. I defer to his pronunciation and apologise for mispronouncing it.
My hon. Friend’s point was excellent, however, because local authorities are very often on the frontline—if I may use that phrase—of providing support to veterans. The Government have introduced the armed forces covenant, which places a duty on local authorities to provide services to veterans, in particular focused on housing and education. He makes a good point that liaison between state bodies and voluntary organisations is crucial. I know that he does excellent work in this House on strengthening communities and bringing forward Burke’s “little platoons”—to borrow an expression—in support of parts of society. He and I share a view that it is not possible for the state to reach all parts of society. Veterans are a good example of that. We need the state instruments—better organised systems and state bodies such as the veterans advisory and pensions committees—but they must be complemented by local and community-led initiatives, to reach effectively all parts of society.
I was naming some of the associations and organisations in Aberconwy, and I must mention Military Minds football club. This is a team set up by relatives of veterans in recognition of the support that they saw their family members needed as veterans in the community, with a particular focus on mental health. I had an inspiring cup of coffee—that might sound like a strange thing to say—with those guys. They set out their own experience of what they have seen—fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins. There is a place for this. They have taken that vision forward and have regular practice sessions, fixtures, sponsors and so on. It is all with the intention of supporting those who need help transitioning into society, and they are very effective.
I must mention Llandudno’s Troop Cafe, which is a slightly more formalised initiative in the community. As it says on the tin, it is a cafe in which members of the armed forces will frequently meet and events will be held. One event is to do with repairing broken implements and appliances, which serves to help give people something to do and a place to meet where they can share and talk with one another about the challenges they face. As well as its importance of veterans, it is delivering real value to the community, too.
Since being elected as the MP for Aberconwy, it has been eye-opening for me to support the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I spot some other alumni from that scheme today here. The scheme has given me and many other MPs an invaluable insight into the lives of those who protect our country. Very often, the conversations that I and colleagues have with members of the armed forces during those sessions are about what happens outside of the armed forces—what happens with accommodation and what happens after leaving the service.
Veterans make a valuable contribution to communities across my constituency of Aberconwy, and indeed across the country at large. This is testament to the fact that the majority reintegrate successfully and go on to live fulfilled, productive lives within society. Indeed, it would be wrong to characterise the veterans community as being wholly in need of support for disabilities, mental health problems and distress. That is an incorrect caricature of that community—of the roughly 2.1 million veterans in the UK. The vast majority are living quiet, productive lives within society, making huge contributions without any fanfare or fuss, drawing on their skills and experience to be effective in their families and communities.
For some, however, the transition is more challenging. Such individuals may require additional, often highly tailored, support. The Government have been working hard to improve the support for such individuals, most recently taking the historic step of enshrining the armed forces covenant as a statutory duty at all levels of public service. Sadly, the roll-out of support has not been as balanced as it might have been. Poor co-ordination at times between bodies, combined with varying levels of knowledge about the duties of those public bodies under the covenant means that support can be overly bureaucratic and confusing, leaving some to fall through the gaps.
That was a feature of the conversation that I had just last week with local veterans, who talked about the frustration of trying to work through a local authority housing allocation scheme, of being caught up on a list, and of approaching the top of the list only to find that others with needs will be placed before them. Very often, it is single males of working age who, because of need, receive the lowest priority within local authority allocations and who find themselves frustrated time and again. They ask what more must they do, or can they do, to get access to housing, which is a key part of that independence transition back into society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who could not be here today, revealed on Second Reading, research by the all-party parliamentary group on veterans suggests that four in five veterans rate their experience of claiming compensation from Veterans UK as “poor” or “very poor”. That observation has been affirmed by stakeholder engagement by the Royal British Legion, which found that the roll-out of veteran support under the covenant has been slowed by
“limited co-ordination and unclear relationships”
between responsible bodies.
The pressing issues of co-ordination and consistency in veteran support point to the need for accountability, feedback and support at local level. The veterans advisory and pensions committees appear to be the best placed bodies to fulfil these roles. The veterans support landscape is a complex one, but the VAPCs stand unique on this as statutory players across this landscape. The Bill, in enabling the VAPCs to play a more active role, presents a significant opportunity for a constructive contribution there. As distinct, identifiable and independent points of reference for veterans, these volunteer staff bodies already play a vital role in co-ordinating the views of veterans and their families, raising awareness and supporting implementation.
However, because VAPCs are limited at present in the services they can offer, they lack a clearly defined remit. As a result, their relationships with other stakeholders on and within that landscape can be frustrating. That can limit their ability to feed back the representative experiences of the veteran community and undermine their own ability to hold other organisations to account. That was a recurring point within the debates we have had and the conversations I had in the run-up to this Bill and its progression through this House.
Furthermore, these current frameworks also limit the veterans who can access their support. Members of such bodies have made clear their desire to do more and related their frustration at the legislative constraints upon what they can do. These men and women are volunteers and they do terrific work for the veterans in their community, and this frustration they speak of is palpable.
The Bill draws on the feedback of veterans, charities and public bodies. By tapping into the potential of the committees, it hopes to build a better landscape for veterans. First, the Bill will move the statutory powers of the advisory committees into the Armed Forces Act 2006. That move reflects the proximity of VAPCs to the implementation of the armed forces covenant.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend outline to the House in practical terms the measures that veterans in our respective communities will feel on the ground once this legislation becomes law? How will they interact with those advisory bodies?
Robin Millar
I thank my hon. Friend for that good question. In many respects, this is very much a boiler room Bill; it is in the background and it deals with the piping—with the knocking in of pipes and putting them in the right direction. It does not deal with the front-of-house expression of what happens. By giving these freedoms that I am setting out, for example, this first freedom of moving powers into the Armed Forces Act, it enables the Minister to make quicker changes in response to feedback that comes through the system. At present, two reviews are being planned—several probably are, but two spring to mind—one being the quinquennial review and the other being the review of Veterans UK. When those reviews report, I am sure that recommendations will be made, and the Minister would usually then have to think how those could be implemented.
Until this Bill, VAPCs, because they were established within primary legislation, could not easily be repurposed or changed in terms of what they can do. This Bill allows the Minister, through a statutory instrument—a much simpler process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) will appreciate—to make those changes in response to recommendations. So I cannot say to a veteran today that their life will change in such and such a way, but I can say that the Minister will be able to respond faster to what is happening in the world around and will be able, through the VAPCs, then to make sure that a more relevant conversation is happening with veterans about the needs they have within their local community. As I have said, the Bill allows the Minister to amend the functions of the committee over time, and this will reflect the changing needs of veterans. It builds on this highlighted need for responsiveness to feedback, allowing Ministers to adapt to challenges and periodic review recommendations highlighted by the VAPCs on behalf of volunteers, veterans and families.
Secondly, the Bill widens the scope of the VAPCs’ role and responsibilities. Monitoring and advising on war pensions and the armed forces compensation scheme is an important and historic but, in essence, limited function. Expanding the range of the VAPCs would reflect the broader range of support now available to veterans and their families, enabling the committees to link these services on behalf of individuals and better identify gaps in provision.
The broader remit also means that VAPCs will be able to provide greater scrutiny at ground level. This reference to ground truth and being the voice of veterans locally was, again, a recurring phrase and petition made to me in the run-up to this Bill. It is indeed the key component in improving any public service. The different groups I have spoken to are hopeful that this reform has the potential to improve feedback from veterans on important issues, creating a clear incentive to action by decision makers, a point the Minister may wish to respond to in his concluding remarks.
Thirdly and finally, the Bill broadens the cohort of veterans and families able to access support from VAPCs. Currently, only those in receipt of war pensions and provision from the armed forces compensation schemes are guaranteed help from VAPCs. Let me digress by noting the contribution of our national service veterans to our country over their time. Obviously, the Bill deals with veterans in service, but representations have been made to me on this by mail during the passage of this Bill and I note and acknowledge that at this time.
The current position prevents the VAPCs from attending to the broad range of social support that veterans and their families often need. It also limits the ability of the committees to communicate with the wider ex-service community, which in turn prevents them from providing representative feedback to Government. By widening the committees’ remit to all veterans and their families, regardless of compensation entitlement, the Bill will both strengthen support services and give the veteran community a clear voice at the heart of Government.
These reforms provide a much-needed accountability mechanism to ensure that all levels of government uphold their duty to support veterans and their families. They improve co-ordination and knowledge sharing across service providers, they place a clear representative voice for veterans in central Government and they enhance the Government’s ability to respond efficiently to that voice.
One thing that has emerged from the discussions with the umbrella organisations and other charities that work with veterans is the concept of a “future veteran.” We have heard talk of a future soldier, but there is also space for a future veteran. What do we see or understand as a veteran’s role in society beyond their service? Shaping support to enable and support them in those roles is an exciting and current idea.
In all these regards, I am pleased to say the Bill has received support from stakeholders across the veteran community, as well as from vital veterans charities such as the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and the umbrella confederation of British service charities, Cobseo.
It remains only for me to encourage colleagues to support this Bill. In doing so, we send a clear message to service personnel and families—past, present and future. This country hears you, this country supports you and, when the time comes, this country will repay its debt to you.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I commend the work of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) in bringing the Bill to Third Reading. As he knows, I tried to amend the Bill in Committee, to test the Committee’s mood and to see what more we can do.
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a vice-chair of the all-parry parliamentary group on veterans, which has undertaken a lot of work on the further support that is needed, particularly through Veterans UK. I saw this Bill as an opportunity to see what more we can do, but that takes nothing away from the Bill itself. The Bill’s aims are excellent, and it will go a long way towards further increasing the support available to veterans.
I thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for meeting me and other members of the APPG, and for initiating a review of Veterans UK. Just over a year ago, I led a Backbench Business debate in which the House agreed that there should be a review. Unfortunately, we hit a few buffers along the way, and only since he took up his post have we seen the review move forward. I look forward to the review’s outcomes, and the passage of this Bill will enable him swiftly to implement any recommendations.
Just yesterday afternoon, the Justice and Veterans Minister, Keith Brown, led an excellent debate in the Scottish Parliament on employment support for veterans. The debate was also an opportunity to highlight the support being put in place by the Scottish Government, within the powers they have. We must all take every step we can to help veterans. On that note, I am proud of Midlothian Council in my constituency, as I understand it is the first housing organisation in Scotland to sign up as a partner of Veterans Housing Scotland. The first family has now been housed through that process.
We provide better support when we all work together. This Bill will go a long way in making a real difference to a lot of people. There is still more we can do, and I will continue to make that push. Veterans have been in touch with so many of us and, in my constituency, Garry McDermott first brought some of these issues to my attention. A wide range of members of our forces community are finding it challenging to address the situations in which they find themselves through no fault of their own. I think we are all on the same page in wanting to do everything we can.
I commend the work of the hon. Member for Aberconwy, and I look forward to the Bill being passed.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak for the third time today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) on bringing forward the Bill. I know only too well what a privilege it is to be drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and to guide a piece of legislation through Parliament; it is hugely rewarding. I congratulate him on using the opportunity to raise this important issue.
Last year, I too had the privilege of taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, just as my hon. Friend did. I place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for his sterling work leading the scheme. I must give a special mention to Amy Swash in his office, who does such an incredible job.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I emphasise that point. I too was on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and extend my thanks. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most eye-opening insights we got into our modern Army and how we look after veterans was at Tunnel beach in Cyprus, where we met Barry and the team who run the sailing there to help people with their mental health? It was a hugely valuable experience. I know that Barry will welcome the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar).
Peter Gibson
I am grateful for the intervention. The time at Tunnel beach was very special, and it was great to meet the team there.
Many of us in the House will have spoken to veterans in our constituency about their life in the forces and, inevitably, the challenges that they face after service life. I know that our veterans will welcome the Bill. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy for bringing forward such an important Bill; it will make a huge difference to the veteran community across the United Kingdom, which is more than 2 million-strong. They have given so much to our country, and give so much to our society, so it is entirely right that we support them to the best of our ability.
My constituency of Darlington has a large veteran community, in part due to its proximity to Catterick. Since being elected to this place, I have had the opportunity to engage extensively with them—in one-to-one meetings in my constituency; by meeting the great guys in the Darlington branch of the Royal British Legion; and by seeing the fantastic work at Plane Sailing for Heroes, where veterans suffering from distress are working together to build a Viking longboat. It would be remiss of me not to invite the Minister to visit Plane Sailing on his next visit to Darlington. There are many other groups in Darlington, and every one of them provides support to their members and contributes to our community. It is a privilege to serve them as their Member of Parliament.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy has outlined, there are 12 veterans advisory and pensions committees across the UK. Their statutory function is to engage locally with war pensioners and recipients of the armed forces compensation scheme, and to make recommendations and representations to Government. Satisfaction with the system is incredibly low. In the last Veterans UK customer satisfaction survey, only 36% of veterans using the war pension scheme noted any level of satisfaction with it, and 32% of veterans scored the scheme a one—the lowest possible rating. Only 13% of those surveyed gave the armed forces compensation scheme any sort of positive rating above five, with half of veterans rating their satisfaction at one—again, the lowest possible option. Overall, the dissatisfaction rate with the Veterans UK claims process is a shocking 80%. That needs to change, and I am confident that the Bill is a step in the right direction.
The point of the Bill is to right some of the wrongs of the system, and to make sure that the statutory functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees reflect and serve the needs of veterans as they are now, not as they were when the initial legislation was put in place. My hon. Friend’s Bill is excellent. I know that veterans up and down the country will warmly welcome it, and I am delighted to give it my support today.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Today is something of a veterans’ reunion, because I too served in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, along with my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and others—we were comrades in arms. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and his team, and particularly the team from the Army, who co-ordinate that brilliant scheme.
The Bill will put some really important, practical measures on the statute book. I commend and echo all the points my hon. Friends have made about the basic necessity of transferring the pension scheme to MOD legislation and widening the scheme’s scope to reflect what is going on in wider society and the admirable expansion in the terms of reference that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy in saying that the experience of veterans is not isolated today, if it ever was. Legislation should not be isolated to their experience as former soldiers; they are integrated into our society. Our society and our Parliament have an absolute obligation to ensure that the support they receive is properly interconnected and properly integrated into the wider service system. That is why the armed forces covenant was such an important statement of commitment from this country about what we owe to our veterans who have served the country and, crucially, to their families too. Importantly, the Bill will ensure that veterans’ families are properly in scope.
I recognise and pay tribute to all the people who have contributed to the development of the armed forces covenant. I also pay tribute to all the veterans’ charities and institutions that for decades—in many cases for 100 years and more—have quietly, humbly and doggedly served the cause of our veterans and their families. I am very proud to support a Government who have put into statute those important principles.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, I am concerned about the satisfaction rating of Veterans UK in recent years. It is a source of real concern for us all. I am glad that with the appointment of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the other rearrangements in Whitehall, we seem to be properly gripping the challenge, but we cannot rest until there are high satisfaction ratings among our veterans with respect to the services they receive. We have done a lot, but there is a lot more to do.
The reference to Future Soldier is significant. Our country’s security depends on our armed forces, who in turn depend on their families and on the support given to them as human beings living in this country—members of local communities, with their children in our schools. They need to know that when they leave the Army, they will be properly supported in their pension arrangements and in all the other services they receive.
Although we would all individually wish for a larger armed forces, I pay tribute to Defence Ministers for what they have achieved in getting further funding from the Treasury for improvements in kit, welfare and capabilities. I look forward to seeing them succeed in their undoubted efforts to grow the size of the Army. I regret the diminution in manpower and headcount that is under way, but I am sure that as time goes on and as the economy and public finances allow, we will see the Army growing again.
I end by paying tribute to a group of units, formations and battalions. I wonder whether the Minister knows what the following have in common: the Signals, the Royal Military Police, the Rifles, the Armoured Infantry Brigade, the Household Cavalry, the Mercians, the Royal Logistics Corps, the Royal Tank Regiment, the Queen’s Royal Hussars, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the 1st Artillery, the Royal Welsh, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and, let us not forget, the Royal Artillery. They are, of course, all located in the genuine home of the British Army, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) might claim: in Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill and the super-garrison there. I pay tribute to all the men and women who serve our country and are based in my constituency, and to their families.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) on bringing the Bill to its final stage in this House before it proceeds to the other place.
I am proud to speak in this debate, as someone who comes from a proud military family. I tried to blag the beep test myself: despite being deaf in one ear, I tried to pretend I could hear the beeps going off, but was caught out because I did not realise that they had not yet pressed “play” on the machine. However, my grandfather Terry was a Royal Marine who served in combat during Suez, and my other grandfather, William, served in the Royal Air Force in Egypt and the United Kingdom. I have a living relative—a great-great-uncle, I think—Allan Gullis, a D-day veteran, who was partly responsible for the building of the temporary Mulberry harbours as we were landing ashore. It was a remarkable experience to see him in Portsmouth not long ago when world leaders gathered to celebrate the historic moment when so many people so gallantly risked their lives not just to protect us here in the United Kingdom but to free Europe from tyranny, and I am very proud that that involved a member of my own family.
Robin Millar
My hon. Friend has mentioned the Mulberry harbours. He may be interested to know one of the places where they were tested and developed is in my constituency. On the banks of the River Conwy is the Mulberry pub, which is on the site of their development. May I make a more serious point, however? Does this not reflect the diversity of the skills that members of our armed forces possess, and the value that that diversity brings to society after they have left?
Jonathan Gullis
I could not agree more. Let me say first that I would love to go to the Mulberry pub and have a drink with my hon. Friend. I am a teetotaller, so I will be quite dull—I may just have a lemonade and orange juice—but I shall be more than happy to sit there and join in with some joyous chat. As for that diversity of skills, I acknowledge it entirely.
We used to wind up my grandfather because every photo he had from his time in Egypt was of him enjoying himself lying on a sun lounger. I did once ask if he had ever actually done any service. I remember that when we visited a museum in Portsmouth to look at the D-day memorabilia we saw an old deckchair, and I, as a five-year-old lad, asked my grandfather, “Is that your deckchair from when you served in Egypt?” Let us just say that after the talking-to I received, that joke was never made again at my grandfather’s expense.
The diversity of skills needed to serve in our armed forces and to be able to deal with the challenges that they face from day to day is truly remarkable. It would be remiss of me, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am sure that you will be kind and show me a little bit of patience, as much as, hopefully, the Prime Minister will show me after my vote on Wednesday—not to rattle off the names of some of the fantastic organisations in my constituency, run by veterans in most cases. Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will be home to many who served in the Staffordshire Regiment and many who were recruited from this small but mighty city. The Veteran Support Network, led by Lee West, contains the Arts and Minds Gallery, based in the old Harper Street in Middleport. I have purchased two paintings by serving veterans, to be hung in my home to celebrate the history of the Potteries, but also to celebrate the fact that the ceramic poppies that were on display not long ago outside the Tower of London were made in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. One display at Middleport Pottery, flowing from the bottle kiln down to the ground, was truly beautiful and remarkable, and it was truly special to have some recreated artwork to commemorate that.
We also have Tri Services, which operates across Staffordshire as a whole, and Operation R&R in Newchapel and Mow Cop, designed to give rest and respite to those brave veterans who do so much.
Katherine Fletcher
My hon. Friend has mentioned the creativity with which local voluntary organisations are helping veterans. Does he agree that some of the spirit that enabled them to serve so well comes across in that? For example, the Leyland veterans in South Ribble are on parade on Remembrance Day on their motorbikes, wearing their leather jackets. There is a little bit of a Lancashire nod and wink there. Everyone uniquely represents their own area as well as their own service, which is wonderful to see.
Jonathan Gullis
It is absolutely wonderful to see. My hon. Friend is a fine champion for veterans and our armed forces.
When it comes to parades, I—like other Members—am always astonished by the hundreds, if not thousands, who turn out in the town of Kidsgrove for the parade from the town hall down to the memorial gardens. Those gardens were taken over, without anyone knowing who owned the land, by those from the Kidsgrove and Districts Royal British Legion. It is safe to say that it is their land now—whether or not that is legal is another question—and they have certainly done their bit to ensure that the gardens are commemorative.
Local businesses invest in memorials to remember our glorious dead, who were willing to give up their tomorrow for our today. That is truly astonishing. I have been on the back of the bikes that have gone around—not that I am a motorcyclist—and was certainly gripping on tight to my veteran as he rode me around the great city of Stoke. Celebrations also take place in areas associated with mining. It is very easy to forget that many people served their country here at home. In Stoke-on-Trent, a proud mining community, an awful lot of people sacrificed their lives underground to ensure, especially in the first world war, that we were fuelling the war effort from home. The Chatterley Whitfield Friends placed a memorial to those who gave active service underground across the Stoke-on-Trent North and Staffordshire area, so that their lives are remembered—that is truly remarkable. There are also veterans’ breakfast clubs, and Walk Talk Action, which gets people physically out and about to talk about their challenges.
Before I rattle off through the entire constituency, I would like to mention one particular individual. Tomorrow is a special day because there will be a parade and the opening of a memorial garden—created by Councillor Candi Chetwynd using her ward budget—to commemorate 20 years since the sad passing of Corporal Stephen Allbutt. He was killed very tragically in Iraq back in 2003, aged 35 years old, in friendly fire circumstances while in a Challenger 2 tank.
I spent time this week with Stephen’s widow, Debi, and will be with her tomorrow, alongside Councillor Candi Chetwynd and the Stoke-on-Trent North and Staffordshire community, to commemorate his willingness to serve and to put forward his life—not just for us here at home, but to save the people of Iraq from an evil dictator so that they may have freedom and democracy. It is truly harrowing to see the pain that Debi and her two sons still go through today. One of her sons is registered blind, and he has shown such bravery to overcome his personal challenges as well as the mental health challenges that he and his brother have faced—one was 14 and one was eight when they lost their father. It was quite special that Debi allowed me to be part of that special day.
I thank my predecessor’s predecessor, Joan Walley—a Labour Member who sat in this House for nearly 30 years serving Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke—who was a remarkable champion for Debi. She helped Debi in her fight—sadly, it was against the Ministry of Defence at the time—to get answers, demand better care for our servicemen and women out there, and demand better training. Had those things been available, Stephen’s death could have been avoided. I praise Debi for her continued campaign efforts. I have been raising her cause privately to ensure that we never again see troops put into a warzone without the right equipment, support and training. I know that the Minister takes that very seriously. The MOD team are largely, if not all, ex-servicemen and women. That is incredible to see, and it is great to have their experience and knowledge.
On the Bill, it is absolutely right that we use the veterans advisory and pensions committees, which clearly have not only the confidence and respect of veterans organisations, meaning that they are able to reference and pinpoint people in a much more co-ordinated manner, but the knowledge and know-how about what support is available. It is a shame that, in 2023, we are still having to amend legislation, but it is good that we are doing it to ensure that support gets to veterans in particular. I look forward to talking more about pensions when we get to my Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill shortly.
This legislation will be critical not just for those who serve, but for their families, who also pay a price. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) pointed out, they see their loved ones go off overseas, or go away for months or years at a time. That is a huge, tremendous challenge. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, and I thank the whole House for supporting the legislation, which I look forward to seeing go through to the other place and, I hope, pass into statute as soon as possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure as always to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who always gives a lively speech and informs the House of many things that emanate from the great city of Stoke. I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and his excellent Bill, which will have a big impact on our veterans.
One of the problems in this country is when our armed forces serve overseas and are in action, it is all over the media and there is great sympathy and support from the whole country, but all too often, long after that action has ceased, we forget what has happened to them. When they leave, they are not praised as much as they should be. I contrast that with what happens in, for example, the United States. I have had the opportunity to visit the United States and see some of the actions that take place where they praise and celebrate veterans, but we do not do enough in this country to celebrate the service of men and women across the globe on behalf of this country. In my own constituency, as other Members have also mentioned, we have the annual Remembrance Day parade that veterans come to. The highlight is those people on bikes at the end of the parade. Members of Parliament will always go to our Remembrance Day parades with pride for our wonderful servicemen and women, and rightly so. I take it as an absolute duty to appear at the parade each year and to support it.
We have 2,723 veterans in Harrow, and many of them have experienced what has happened to people after they leave the armed forces. My constituency is home to RAF Bentley Priory, which was the headquarters of fighter command during world war two. It was from that centre that we fought off the Nazis in the Battle of Britain. We celebrate that every year. Sadly, most of those veterans are no longer with us. However, we have a large amount of ex-service accommodation and, indeed, service accommodation in my constituency, and those individuals and their families have varying experiences of what has been provided to them.
One of my other duties in the House is being the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. I am sad to report to the House that, in London alone, between 3,000 and 4,000 veterans are homeless every night. That is a disgrace to this country because we should be supporting those veterans as much as we can. Indeed, in my private Member’s Bill—the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—there was a specific duty on the Ministry of Defence and local authorities to assist and house veterans who have served this country. In some local authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy pointed out, families will often receive help and assistance going from military accommodation into local authority accommodation where appropriate, but it is not the same experience for single men or even single women. They are often seen as low priority by local authorities, and that is something we must fix.
As has been mentioned, the lack of confidence that veterans have in the process is clear. That demonstrates that the law must be brought up to date and further action must be taken. The world has changed dramatically over the past 34 years, and it is about time that we update and modernise the way we treat our veterans. The Bill goes a long way to support that. In fact, one concern is that the process is so out of date and complicated that many veterans give up. They drop their claims and lose out on the compensation they deserve. That is also a disgrace to this country. Those frustrations often lead to mental, and possibly physical, health conditions. A spiral takes place that sadly ends in many of our veterans taking their own lives. That is something we cannot allow to continue.
It is also important that we remember the role of military service men and women’s family. A toll is often taken by them when their loved ones are away for extended periods, and they naturally fear for their safety. They deal with the mental and physical strain of what happens when their loved one is in theatre or in action. I am therefore pleased that the Bill updates the statutory functions to extend not only to veterans but to their families.
Finally, let me put on record my appreciation for the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women. Every year, on the Sunday after Remembrance Day we have a parade, and people who have served, or the sons and daughters of those who served, march to the cenotaph, together with their medals. It is a hugely attended function. I have had the opportunity of being part of that parade ever since I was elected in 2010. I commend colleagues across the House to come along and participate, because that attendance will be appreciated. Unfortunately, not many MPs do attend, which is a shame. Often MPs have other functions on a Sunday—we all understand that—but it would be hugely appreciated by AJEX if more Members participated. I commend the action taken by AJEX, as well as by other charities such as the Royal British Legion and so forth, which do such wonderful work for servicemen and woman who are veterans. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate, and I commend the Bill and look forward to it making its way through the other place and being enacted.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I rise in support of the Bill. It was a privilege to serve as a member of the Committee. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for the Bill, and for all his tireless work and efforts to ensure that our veterans and their families are supported. It is no surprise that the Bill has received wide support, including from the Government, which reflects the utmost respect that Members across the House have for our veterans, and our subsequent strong desire to ensure that the highest possible standards of support are provided to them.
As Winston Churchill once said:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]
I welcome that the Bill reflects that belief, and the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place to live for the whole armed forces community—something I wholeheartedly support.
In Bexley, where I am proud to serve, there are 4,958 veterans, which is approximately 2.5% of the population. I welcome that for the first time that data has been made available through the 2021 census, which also highlighted the difficulties that veterans sometimes face. For example, in London, 12% of veterans self-reported their general health as “very bad” or “bad”. That is more than three times the level in the general London population, with only 4% self-reporting in those categories. The difficulties that veterans face are not only in the area of physical and mental health but also, as we have heard, with housing, employment and welfare, which is a direct consequence and reflection of the sacrifices they have made for our country. We therefore owe it to them to ensure they are appropriately supported in those areas, and to help them live secure and healthy lives with a purpose. I welcome that the Bill achieves that.
The veterans advisory and pensions committees have played an important role by providing vital advice and support at a local level for veterans, including the 4,958 veterans who live in Bexley. However, VAPCs are limited in the scope of the advice they can provide, and in which veterans can access them. The Bill therefore seeks to address the need for reform to create more robust and broader services for all veterans and their families, as well as to adapt to the new need for veterans to access advice on how the armed forces covenant affects them being put on a statutory footing. I thank all those businesses that have looked to increase their support for veteran communities across the UK. Through the Bill, the scope of the VAPCs’ advisory powers would go beyond compensation schemes to modernising the VAPCs to take account of the changing social and legal framework, which is so important to offering holistic and consistent support to our veterans.
Furthermore, it is clear that serving in the armed forces means that extra support may be needed not only for wounded, sick or injured veterans, particularly as they transition to civilian life, but for veterans and their families. I welcome the fact that this Bill recognises the need to extend the statutory scope of VAPCs’ functions to include all veterans and their families. The landscape in which VAPCs operate has changed considerably over the past 10 years, so I also welcome the fact that this Bill not only adapts to that landscape, but enables the Government to make changes to the VAPCs’ statutory functions more easily in the future. That will allow us to meet the needs of veterans more readily for years to come, something that is crucial in ensuring that veterans receive the highest possible standard of support, as they deserve.
In conclusion, our veterans have played a vital role in keeping this country safe and it is our duty to ensure that those who have served our country receive the best possible care. I welcome the fact that, at its heart, this Bill helps to deliver on that duty, as reflected in the support it has received from brilliant veterans’ charities, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA—the Armed Forces Charity, Help for Heroes and, in my local community, East Wickham & Welling War Memorial Trust, which does wonderful work each year to support local causes and local veterans. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy again for his clear passion to ensure that all veterans receive the support they deserve after they have made such honourable sacrifices for our country and our safety.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for introducing this Bill. It is a Bill he can be proud of; I suspect it may have been a Bill he was given by Ministers to introduce, but none the less he has done so very well.
I have enjoyed the speeches from Conservative Members, who have raised some important issues relating to veterans. Across this House, we thank all those people who have served in our armed forces. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I add my praise to the love-in towards the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and his team and all the SO1s from the Ministry of Defence who do such a good job supporting us in that endeavour.
This Bill is an important update to the piping, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy described it, for veterans advisory and pensions committees, which play a key role in supporting our veteran communities on a regional basis right across the United Kingdom. They are a vital method of engagement with war pensioners, armed forces compensation scheme recipients, the armed forces welfare services and the Veterans Welfare Service at a local level. I thank all those who volunteer on the committees—it is a job that until very recently has not received much attention in this place, but it is important that we thank them for the work they have been doing.
However, it also true that, as the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) mentioned, veterans advisory and pensions committees now operate in a fundamentally different environment from what their remit, as previously laid out in statute, has been. For that reason, Labour welcomes this update to the legislation to ensure that the committees are able to play a more extensive role in raising awareness of other initiatives that affect veterans and, importantly, their families—because not only those people who serve in uniform, but their families form part of the greater armed forces family and should have support.
On Second Reading last month, our shadow Minister for veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) correctly made the point that,
“local authorities, health bodies and other organisations must understand their obligations to veterans”,—[Official Report, 24 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 480.]
and those that extend to their families, under the armed forces covenant. This Bill makes reference to that. I know that Members on both sides of the House have tried their best to make the case that the armed forces covenant needs to be more clearly explained. Now, thanks to the census, we understand where veterans are—the answer is “everywhere”—and it is for every single local authority and public body to implement the armed forces covenant correctly, ensuring that the best practice already established by councils in Portsmouth, and Plymouth, which I am proud to represent, extends to every community.
In the Bill Committee, which I note some of the Conservative Members present served on, I raised a number of points. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs responded to them, but I want to press a couple with this Minister if I can. The work of the veterans advisory and pensions committees is very important, but they are not prominent on the Ministry of Defence website and the VAPC section on the MOD part of gov.uk could do with a wee bit of updating—in particular, ensuring that the annual report consolidating the work of all the VAPCs across the country can be more clearly understood, to enable parliamentary scrutiny.
Regarding the VAPCs, I acknowledge that the Government established non-statutory supplementary terms of reference for a period of 12 months in 2021, which provided the committees with a more comprehensive and distinct role in supporting all veterans and their families. That guidance now moves to the Ministry of Defence from the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. That is a welcome move and ensures that the work of VAPCs can be more properly aligned to other parts of veterans’ communities and public services that now interact with our veterans and their families.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the Secretary of State will use the powers in the Bill to appoint members of VAPCs. How do we ensure that membership of the committees reflects veterans’ communities? Two groups of veterans’ communities are often poorly served by veterans’ activities: national service veterans, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), and recent veterans. Making sure that someone is able to understand the services available to them and their pension arrangements, especially in the event of medical discharge at an earlier rate, is really important. In some cases, people who leave military service at an earlier age may not always regard themselves as veterans, so it is important that there is a representative body on the VAPCs that understands how to engage with all the appropriate groups.
Finally, many Members have discussed the superb work being done by veterans’ groups in their communities. I thank all those in Plymouth undertaking that work. On Wednesday, I visited the Southampton Veterans Drop-In Centre, with Councillor Darren Paffey from Southampton City Council. The centre does vital work, and I put on record my thanks to Colin and Tracey Gaylor for the work they are doing, providing first-class support for veterans’ communities in that city. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the rest of its stages.
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I am delighted to be here to support this important Bill, but I apologise that it is me rather than the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who would have preferred to have been in my place. He has been working on the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) throughout the Bill’s progress, but unfortunately events elsewhere have detained him.
This is a great Bill that has been expertly steered through by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy. It has been a pleasure to take part in the debate and fantastic to hear the cross-party support for the Bill, exemplified by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson).
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) offered a ministerial visit to Plane Sailing in Darlington. If I find myself in that neck of the woods on my search for ammunition for our Ukrainian friends, I will certainly swing by. Otherwise, I will suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs that he visits.
Peter Gibson
Plane Sailing is a wonderful charity. It is manufacturing a Viking longboat, although I think it would take him a very long time to get to Ukraine in that.
James Heappey
Invariably, in helping the Ukrainians with their maritime attack capability, something faster and stealthier than longboats has been needed, but I will bear the offer in mind nonetheless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)—more accurately, my hon. Friend for the British Army—did as he does. He supports the Army magnificently and did not miss an opportunity to list a number of fine regiments, none finer than The Rifles.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis)— [Interruption.] It is only a matter of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North got the final laugh on his grandfather by making sure that his grandfather’s sunbathing habits in Egypt are now immortalised in Hansard. He went on to mention the Hearts & Minds charity, Operation R&R, Walk Talk Action and the Veterans Breakfast Club. There is a Veterans Breakfast Club in my own constituency and I know how important that is. He rightly mentioned the work of Councillor Candi Chetwynd in securing the memorial to Corporal Stephen Allbutt, who was killed in action in Iraq. That is a timely memorial to be unveiling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly drew attention to the number of veterans who still struggle to find housing or who commit suicide. There is a good story to tell from a Government policy perspective, inasmuch as interventions are starting to bring results, but he knows as well as I do that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, works tirelessly on those issues, which are a great mission for him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East also mentioned the Association of Ex-Jewish Servicemen and Women, and it was great to hear that great organisation placed on the record. I hope that I and other colleagues are able to find the time to come to join the parade that he invited us to.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) established himself as a keen supporter of veterans in his community. He mentioned the national charities of the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and Help for Heroes, as well as mentioning the East Wickham and Welling War Memorial Trust in his constituency. It is great that its work has been put on the record today, too.
The shadow Minister for Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) asked that we look at updating the veterans advisory and pensions committees website, the terms of reference and also how the Secretary of State intends to appoint people to ensure that there is true representation and that veterans can have confidence in that. I will make sure that all that is reflected back to both the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and the Secretary of State. The shadow Minister’s recommendations are well made.
Bob Blackman
My right hon. Friend kindly raises the AJEX parade that I mentioned. I am pleased to report that the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) last November became the first Minister to attend the parade. I put on record our thanks for that. I am sure that that will become a tradition every year.
James Heappey
Indeed. I am glad that that attendance was possible, and I am sure it will become a tradition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy has brought this wonderful Bill through the House brilliantly. I know that it will pass seamlessly through the other place, but the Ministry of Defence will of course continue to work hard to make sure that that is the case.
While I know that my friends in the Whips Office are keen to get on to other business, I might just mention in this week that it is the 20th anniversary of the Iraq war. As an Iraq veteran, I want to say two things. First, I say to all Iraq veterans that their service in that theatre will never be forgotten. It is one of the more politically contentious interventions that this country has made, but that contention never reflects on our service. Secondly, for those of us who, like me, are deeply conflicted about why we were there when, on later iterations of Operation Telic, we were effectively fighting an insurgency that existed because we were there, I take huge heart from the job that I now do, where I can see how the Chilcot principles are applied every day to how we decide what to do in the world with our military. If nothing else, that is a great legacy of that war, because we now use our military, I think, in a more precise and considered way.
Robin Millar
With the leave of the House, I will just say that one point that has emerged for me is the number of individuals who have been named. On that basis, I must thank Lord Lancaster for his foresight in seeing this as an amendment to the Armed Forces Act some time ago. I also thank Lieutenant Colonel John Lighten, the national chair of the VAPC, for his guidance in helping my understanding throughout this process. I must also mention Adrian Hughes of the Home Front Museum in Llandudno, who showed me the importance of this and how it affects every life in a community over the decades. On that, I must mention my own father, who modelled for me the best of what veterans bring to their families and in service to society. He also taught me how many carry quietly these hidden burdens on our behalf throughout their lives. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 View all Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Bill before us today provides the legislative powers to implement the 2017 automatic enrolment review recommendations to extend automatic enrolment to young adults aged 18 to 21, by introducing powers to lower the age criteria for enrolment and remove the lower earnings limit, which would improve saving levels among low and moderate earners. Taken together, these changes would help improve financial resilience for retirement among young people, women and lower earners. Extending the eligibility age to 18 will support younger workers and provide them with the opportunity to begin saving from the start of their working lives for a more secure retirement.
Removing the lower earnings limit will proportionately benefit the lowest earners the most. Research from Onward shows that roughly 25% of people from Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are not yet auto-enrolled into pension schemes. The Bill tackles that, creating more stability in the long term. For the first time, everyone will get an employer contribution from the very first pound of their earnings if they are enrolled or opt in. That will help to improve the incentive to save, especially for women and those individuals working part time or in multiple jobs.
Automatic enrolment has been and remains a long-term project. It has been successful through the adoption of a carefully staged, systematic and evidence-based approach, which has been supported by the consensus, including cross-party support, in this place. That is the approach on which successful expansion must be based and why the Bill works in the way that it does—to require Ministers to consult before implementing these changes, for example, on the best way and the optimum timetable for doing so. That gives Parliament, employers, workers and other stakeholders a key role in determining how best to implement the expansion of workplace pensions.
People who earn £9,000 from two separate jobs, and who may be working 12 to 18 hours a week, juggling their jobs around childcare or caring responsibilities, do not currently get the benefits of auto-enrolment at all. For part-time workers, auto-enrolment stands at around 60%, compared with almost 90% of workers in full-time jobs. The Bill will see roughly an extra third of the part-time workforce auto-enrolled, which is an increase on the percentage based in Onward’s research.
Further research from Onward suggests that, when this change comes through, it will bring almost £3.5 billion to people in our area for their total life savings. This will be transformative for the lives of everyone not just across our great country but, most importantly, across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
The Bill will help to put cash into communities, help people to help themselves, and provide the extra private sector money to deliver the levelling up that we so desperately need. Automatic enrolment is widely and rightly recognised as a success. It has transformed workplace pension saving for millions of workers and is enabling them to save towards greater security in retirement.
What this Bill makes certain is that, in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, North West Durham and Consett, where nearly one in four people are not yet auto-enrolled onto a pension scheme, people will have more financial security in the long term. It simplifies the process, and for just a few pounds a week, through the power of compound interest, people could be £30,000 better off in retirement. That is absolutely transformative, which is why the Bill is so critical.
I know that the whole House is proud to support the Bill at this current stage and is committed to this expansion of auto-enrolment to build a more inclusive and stronger savings culture for future generations.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this Bill’s passage through the House.
I wish to highlight the importance of this issue to the whole country in the long term. The UK, like most of the rest of the world, has an ageing population. In the next 25 years, the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million—it is often described as the demographic time bomb. Pension saving is one way to tackle the strain that that will place on the public finances. As we know already, when people’s pensions savings are not sufficient, the Government have to step in and provide that minimum floor and safety net.
Therefore, the more that we can encourage individuals privately to save to support themselves in retirement the less the state will have to do through taxation. That is why businesses can and have embraced these changes. Although they are making a contribution in the short term to pension savings, they will see a lower tax burden placed on them as employers in the long term as we seek to meet any gap that might exist later on in people’s lives when they retire. The policy has already been a fantastic success, as my hon. Friend outlined. This change is an important step forward, which I support.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to see the Bill reach Third Reading. I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak for the fourth time today.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for guiding the Bill through its legislative journey, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) for raising this issue in Westminster Hall last year, and my very good and hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for laying the groundwork for the Bill before he was elevated to high office. It is great to see him in his place today.
When auto-enrolment was introduced, as an employer I was fearful of the impact it might have on my business and fearful of the costs it would burden me with, but auto-enrolment has proved to be hugely successful, reversing the decline in workplace pension saving and ensuring that millions more people are now saving for their future. I saw at first hand the benefits the scheme has had on the lives and futures of my employees. Employees who would never have considered being part of a pension scheme were put in a position where it became a simple and easy process. For the first time, they were ensuring that they did not fall into the trap of under-saving for retirement.
We have to recognise that for those under the age of 22 the number of people enrolled in a pension is woefully low. Among those in part-time employment, although some will earn more than the current £10,000 threshold, the number of those auto-enrolled is still significantly lower than among those who are in full-time employment. The 22-year-old minimum age simply does not work. Why should someone who chooses to start working before they are 22 not be paying into a pension from that age, the same way as someone who is 22? They would have much to gain from auto-enrolment being extended to them. Moreover, we must recognise that the current system also disproportionately impacts women and those on the lowest earnings in our society, who are more likely to be in part-time work and have multiple part-time jobs, like many of my constituents in Darlington.
In 2019, I stood on a manifesto to level up communities across the United Kingdom, and the extension of auto-enrolment is a policy that has the potential to have a real positive impact on people’s futures. It would be a commitment to level up for the long-term. The Bill is levelling up in action.
Extending auto-enrolment could potentially add trillions of pounds to the nation’s pension pot. It is a chance to ensure that people are saving for their future from a young age. It allows us to ensure that the poorest in society have a more secure future and takes steps towards closing the gap between men and women’s pension savings.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Alongside this positive Bill, which builds on the success of auto-enrolment, which the Conservative Government adopted, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important we also support the Government’s initiatives to roll out pensions advice more widely, so that people have a better understanding of their own financial situation and pensions saving, particularly for men, women and younger people?
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I know only too well, from conversations I had with family members encouraging me to take up a pension when I was in my early 20s, it seemed an awfully long way off. I can tell the House, some 30 years later, that it comes around very, very quickly. The earlier we all start saving, the better.
In conclusion, the extension of auto-enrolment would have huge benefits for many people in Darlington and right across the country. I am delighted to support the Bill and look forward to it completing its legislative journey.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill. I am sure the House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for long, because the Bill has cross-party support. Improving pensions legislation has a long history of cross-party support, beginning with the legacy of the pensions commission, which reported 21 years ago. The Bill is a part of that ongoing legacy. Saving for our future is very important for us all. The thing that this House can do to help people save for their future is offer a consistent policy approach, and that is what the Bill does. We have made progress on auto-enrolment, but we can go further. It is a pleasure to support the Bill.
I will ask a small number of questions, which I will be grateful if the Minister could answer. The Opposition wholly supports this Bill. It would be helpful to know when in the autumn the consultation will take place. What will the Government strategy be for communicating with young people in particular? I note comments from Members about the power of good that it can do for young people. There have been few positive policy areas for young people over the past years. I would be grateful if the Minister could talk about what the Department for Work and Pensions will do in the area. Could she say what feedback it has had from employers so far, and from trade unions? What is the Department’s plan for working with both those groups and with wider civil society and business communities, to make sure that this is a success? What is the timetable for bringing this legislation into force? What can we expect from this point? If the Minister could talk us through the timetable, I would be most grateful. I wish the Department the very best in making this legislation a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) before him, on successfully piloting this Bill through all its stages in this House. Their efforts will improve the retirement aspirations for millions in the UK, from young people starting work at 18 with a pension for the first time, to those already in a workplace pension who will now build pension savings from the first pound of their earnings.
I acknowledge the support of Members across the House in progressing this legislation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), is right that there has been broad consensus on workplace pensions since the pensions commission. It is a testament to the importance that we all place on delivering improved retirement outcomes for our fellow citizens.
A lot has been achieved in the last decade of the reforms, as has been mentioned numerous times. More than 10 million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. More than 2 million employers are paying into employees’ pensions for the first time. My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) are right that it has been embraced by employers, and we should celebrate that. An additional £33 billion in real terms was saved into workplace pensions in 2021 compared with 2012. As has been mentioned, it has been especially transformative for women, low earners and young people, who historically have been poorly served by, or excluded from, workplace pensions. The Bill sets us on a path to do more for all those groups, who will benefit from increased saving in retirement, with many gaining access for the first time to employer contributions.
In Committee I spoke about the legislative powers in the Bill, and the duty placed on Government to consult on how we make the changes through regulations—both the approach to implementation and the timetable for doing so. We will report to Parliament on the outcome of that consultation before bringing forward the necessary secondary legislation, which will also be debated in this House. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on those details, to ensure that the expansion of automatic enrolment is done in the right way for employers, workers and taxpayers.
To answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions directly, we will work closely with employers and trade unions throughout the consultation process. I have committed previously to launching the consultation in the autumn. I am not in a position to give an exact date, but I assure the hon. Member that I will push as hard as I can to get that as early as possible. Communicating to young people is incredibly important. Once we are through the consultation stage and we have a timeline for when we can make progress, we will work up a plan, and I will return to the House on that. On a timetable for the legislation to come into force, the commitment has previously been the mid-2020s, and that is what we will continue to say. We will have more of an idea once we have done the consultation process. I hope that answers all her questions.
In conclusion, it is to the huge credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North that he successfully introduced the Bill on a cross-party basis and navigated its passage—[Interruption.] There is a first time for everything. I am delighted to say that the Government support the Bill and will continue to support it as it moves through Parliament. I wish it every success.
Jonathan Gullis
With the leave of the House, I wish quickly to place a few thank-yous on the record. First, let me thank the fantastic civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions, many of whom are sitting in the Box today. They have been tremendously helpful to both me and my team in getting the Bill to where we are today. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), for her fantastic work in unblocking the blockages that had previously existed to bringing this legislation forward.
I thank the Opposition Front Benchers, including the hon. Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for all their support, kind words and guidance. I thank the Scottish national party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who has championed this measure and is very excited by it. I also wish to thank the Association of British Insurers, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association and the TUC for all their fine work, as well as Onward, that fantastic think tank, for the incredible work it is doing, now led by Sebastian Payne.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who does not get enough praise in this House. Without her guidance and stern tongue, I might not sometimes be able to be kept in line enough to make sure that we move things smoothly along. So I am grateful to her for the advice she has provided to get us to this place. I also place on record my thanks to Baroness Altmann, who is going to be taking this Bill on in the other place and guiding it safely through to Royal Assent.
The final big shout-out needs to go to my office buddy, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who did all the donkey work, the leg work, for this Bill. I have shamelessly come in and picked it up after he was sent to such high office that I see him only once a week, rather than three or four times a week. I also thank his incredible staff members, Gabriel Millard-Clothier and Robbie Lammas, as well as my own parliamentary researcher, Harry Mahoney-Roberts, and Nathan Purchase in my constituency office, who have suffered with me to get to where we are today. This is a fantastic piece of legislation and it will make a change to many lives in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Firearms Bill
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a privilege for me to move the Bill’s Third Reading, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), following its recent consideration in Committee.
The UK has some of the toughest gun controls in the world, and robust licensing controls are key to keeping the public safe. Firearms deaths or serious injuries are relatively rare, but the consequences of firearms in the wrong hands can be devastating. That is why we keep our controls under constant review to safeguard against firearms falling into the hands of criminals, terrorists and other individuals who might put public safety at risk, while ensuring that legitimate firearms users can participate in shooting safely, through an effective licensing system.
The Bill will help to further strengthen the controls by addressing two vulnerabilities that could be exploited by criminals, terrorists and others with a malicious intent. Clause 1 deals with controls on miniature rifle ranges. It would be fair to say that the current exemption in law for miniature rifle ranges is a lesser-known area of firearms law, but it is none the less extremely important that we improve the legislative regulation relating to them. Section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 at present allows a person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range or shooting gallery at which only miniature rifles and ammunition not exceeding .23-inch calibre or air weapons are used to purchase, acquire or possess miniature rifles or ammunition without a firearm certificate. Additionally, a person can use these rifles and ammunition at such a range without a certificate. Although the term “miniature rifle” is used in the legislation, the firearms this applies to are lethal guns that are otherwise subject to the requirement for the holder to apply for a certificate in order to possess them.
The existing exemption in section 11(4) of the 1968 Act means that a person can purchase firearms and operate a miniature rifle range, at which others can shoot, without a certificate and therefore without having undergone the usual stringent police checks on a person’s suitability and assessment of how they will store and use the firearms safely. The police and others have raised concerns that the exemption is a loophole in firearms law that is vulnerable to abuse by criminals or terrorists seeking to access firearms and sidestep the usual robust checks carried out by the police.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and I entirely support the Bill’s aim in tackling crime, closing those loopholes and increasing public safety. However, will he give further reassurance that this Bill, through targeting these loopholes, will not have an undue impact on those who collect such rifles for historical and ornamental purposes, not for shooting? Will he confirm that it will not put too much of a burden on such people, who already go through checks? This issue has been raised by a constituent who is a collector of such weapons.
Dr Mullan
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. His remarks are particularly pertinent to clause 2, on ammunition components and parts of guns that people might own, whether they are miniature rifles or not. I assure him that that element of the law focuses on the person’s intent, as I will come on to describe. If a person has reasonable grounds for having the components of ammunition, and it is clear to the police that they have no malicious or untoward intent, they will be okay.
As I say, the miniature rifle range exemption has been in existence for many years, and is used extensively by small-bore rifle clubs to introduce newcomers to sport shooting. It is used by some schools and colleges, activity centres offering targeted shooting, at game fairs, and in a number of other legitimate environments. Many of those would be severely affected if the exemption were removed entirely, which was never the intention. If it were removed, clubs could no longer enable newcomers to try out target shooting in a safe, controlled way. In recognition of this, the Bill preserves the benefits of the miniature rifle range exemption, while bringing in appropriate controls by making it a requirement that the rifle range operator be granted a firearm certificate by the police, having undergone all the necessary checks as to suitability, security and good reason.
The Bill also more tightly defines what may be considered a miniature rifle. It restricts the definition to .22-inch rimfire guns, which are lower-powered rifles. There is concern that the definition in current legislation—
“not exceeding .23 inch calibre”—
could allow the use of more powerful firearms that would not be suitable for use on a miniature rifle range by an uncertified person, even when the necessary supervision and safety measures are in place.
The second firearms measure in the Bill is the measure on ammunition, which will help the police to tackle unlawful manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of possessing its component parts with an intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police have raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition are too easy to obtain, and are being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds of ammunition.
Mr French
My hon. Friend is making a really passionate speech. He has picked up on some interesting distinctions between what will be in the Bill and what will not. Could he please outline what guidance there will be for the police, who will have to enforce the measures, on these clear distinctions in the law?
Dr Mullan
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that, as he says, the police will have to make new and different decisions in enforcing this legislation. I am pleased to say that a new training and quality assurance package for police firearm licensing teams is being developed, which will contribute to their being able to make those decisions in a reliable and effective way.
It might be helpful if I briefly explained what the components of ammunition are, and how they go together to make a round of ammunition. The components are the gunpowder, used to propel a projectile from a firearm; the primer, which is an explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder, projectile or bullet; and the cartridge case. There are already controls on primers in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 of that Act makes it an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is authorised to possess them—for example, by being a registered firearms dealer, or by holding a firearm certificate authorising them to possess ammunition for a firearm.
Controls on the possession of gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014, which state that with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police. The projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case are constructed of inert material, and are not controlled. Frankly, given the nature of those two components and the quantities in which they are made, it would be difficult to control their possession, and there is no wish to do so.
The present situation can make the prosecution of certain cases by the police difficult. Where there is intent to produce ammunition unlawfully, the police may be unable to progress with certain criminal cases if the materials found are not controlled. In view of those concerns, the firearms safety consultation sought views on whether controls on component parts of ammunition remained sufficient, or whether they should be strengthened by making it an offence to possess component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of ammunition. As I say, intent is vital. A majority of respondents—62% —agreed or strongly agreed that possession of component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacturer unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition should be made an offence.
Assembly of ammunition requires use of the various component parts, including the restricted and unrestricted components. The new offence will better enable the police to prosecute criminals who are manufacturing ammunition, including in cases in which only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. It will be a significant step forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.
This is a small but important Bill. Events such as those in Keyham in August 2021, on Skye in August 2022 and more recently at Epsom College are clear reminders that we cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that firearms present. The Bill will address two identified vulnerabilities in this country’s firearms controls, and it is right that we take action to address them. I very much appreciate the support that it has so far received; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West feels the same. I commend the Bill to the House.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for moving the Bill’s Third Reading today, and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) for taking it through Committee.
I rise to speak in support of the Bill, which will make small but important changes to our gun laws. As the MP for the constituency that suffered the tragedy of losing five people in the mass shooting in Keyham of August 2021, I am very mindful that in approaching gun legislation we should all do our best to prevent future tragedies, close loopholes and ensure that the pain and suffering that my community has felt is not felt by others. The Bill will make small but important changes in that direction.
In Committee, Opposition Members made the case that although closing these two loopholes is welcome, it shows that yet again we are making ad hoc changes to gun legislation. There may be a stronger case for a broader review of gun laws, in particular to look at updating the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that our gun legislation takes 21st-century conditions into account and keeps people safe based on modern rather than historic practices and uses.
The Bill is narrow and I will constrain my remarks to its provisions. It will clamp down on existing loopholes related to miniature rifles. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the word “miniature” might misleadingly suggest that they are somehow toys or that they are less serious, but .22 rifles are still weapons and should be controlled with appropriate scrutiny of those who apply for a certificate, as well as those without a certificate, as the Bill seeks to address.
Clause 1 will make limited changes to the 1968 Act by introducing a requirement for operators of miniature rifle ranges to obtain a firearm certificate and by restricting such ranges to .22 weapons only—a welcome change that the Opposition think is a good idea. Clause 2 will introduce a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture. The Bill follows the publication of the firearms safety consultation, which sought views on improving the controls on miniature rifle ranges. 73% of those who responded to the survey agreed or strongly agreed
“that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to hold a firearms certificate”.
Labour broadly supports the Bill, but we stress that the legislation should go further. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) spoke of her conversations with police officers, who told her that miniature rifles have been adapted into more dangerous weapons and used to facilitate criminality. It was felt that the requirement for someone operating a miniature rifle range to apply for a firearms certificate should be accompanied by further conditions in recognition of the fact that they are running such an establishment rather than simply possessing a firearm. It was also felt that the running of the range should be subject to routine checks on compliance, but that is missing from clauses 1 and 2.
We need our gun laws to be fit for the 21st century. That means recognising that the 1968 Act is out of date and that the body of assembled gun law changes since the Act could be consolidated to ensure that they are fit for modern challenges. An example relevant to clause 2 is the 3D printing of ammunition and firearms, which was briefly mentioned in Committee. At the moment, 3D printing is used mainly for handguns. Designs can be downloaded freely from the internet, so someone with a 3D printer can print a handgun and other kinds of weaponry. That fundamentally changes criminals’ ability to get their hands on firearms and evade the licensing system. It is also possible for them to print elements of ammunition that fit the gun. The casing is explicitly identified as a component part of ammunition in proposed new section 3A(2)(b) of the 1968 Act, which is set out in clause 2.
It does not appear to me that clause 2 explicitly covers 3D printing. When pressed on this in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), was not able to provide an answer. I realise the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is at the Dispatch Box today, is not responsible for the day-to-day handling of the Bill, but I would be grateful if he could pass my concerns to his officials. If we face a growth in the 3D printing of weapons, which is a genuine risk both in the future and now, we must make sure that the provision of a 3D printer could fall under the same type of offence as suggested in clause 2.
Last week I met Emma Ambler, who lost her twin sister Kelly Fitzgibbons, and Kelly’s two children, to a gun incident. I often speak about Keyham in this place, but it is important to recognise that, around the country, we are seeing people lose loved ones in a variety of circumstances due to firearms, but also due to failures in how firearms certificates and firearms licensing are delivered.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to ensure that responsible gun owners are able to possess a weapon. Making sure that only appropriate individuals have access to a weapon must be at the heart of our approach to gun laws. Sadly, we have seen police forces, including Devon and Cornwall police in my area, fail catastrophically to ensure that only those who should have a gun certificate have one. It is welcome that the Bill extends the provisions to .22 rifles, but wherever a police force is investigating an individual’s suitability, we must make sure that not only are the proper procedures followed but that the same procedures are followed across the nation.
After the Plymouth inquest, the coroner made a number of remarks in this direction. One recommendation was for the introduction of national training for all police officers involved with firearms licensing, to ensure that the regulation of firearms is the same in every part of the country. That is important when looking to extend the provision of firearms licensing, as we are with this Bill, to make sure that, whether it is Devon and Cornwall police, the Metropolitan police or any other police force in England and Wales, the provisions are the same so that we avoid the loss of life we saw in Plymouth and in relation to Kelly Fitzgibbons and her family.
We accept that, due to the nature of this Bill, the Government are not minded to make broader changes at this time, but we are encouraged that there is an appetite to close the loopholes, as identified with .22 rifles in this private Member’s Bill. I encourage the Government to go further. I look forward to meeting the Policing Minister next week with the families of those we sadly lost in the Keyham tragedy in 2021, to make the case for closing further loopholes on a comprehensive basis to ensure that our gun laws in the 21st century keep all our communities safe.
Labour will back this Bill today, and we hope it further reinforces the need to go further to ensure that all our communities remain safe from gun violence.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for so ably stepping in for my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who has done so much work to bring forward this private Member’s Bill and to see it progress through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich did an admirable job of picking up the reins and deftly steering the Bill through Third Reading. This important and proportionate measure will help to advance safety while allowing legitimate activities to continue.
As always, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), approaches the Bill in a pragmatic and sensible way. He highlighted the horrendous events in 2021 that saw the killing of five people in his constituency, and I pay tribute to him for the phenomenal support he gave to his affected constituents and to his community in the light of those horrific events.
As the hon. Gentleman said, he will shortly be seeing the Policing Minister, on whose behalf I am responding today. In respect of the inquest findings following the horrific events in his constituency, I believe that the Policing Minister is committed to respond within 60 days, which according to my calculation brings us to mid-May. It is right for those findings to be considered carefully and properly, and, while I do not wish to pre-empt what the Minister will say, I know that he will indeed be considering them very carefully.
I am happy to confirm that the Government support the Bill, which has been the subject of consensus across the House. It aims to address two vulnerabilities in the existing licensing controls, which have been debated in a commendably constructive way during its passage so far, here and in Committee. We committed ourselves to taking action following a public consultation on specific firearms safety issues that took place between 24 November 2020 and 16 February 2021.
Clause 1 tightens the law relating to miniature rifle ranges by removing the exemption, provided by the Firearms Act 1968, that has allowed those operating such ranges to do so without the necessity of first obtaining a firearm certificate. Removing that exemption will mean that the operators will be subject to police checks ensuring that the ranges operate within a secure and safe framework, and that the firearms used there are stored securely. The Home Office will amend its guidance to reflect the fact that the operation of a miniature rifle range constitutes a good reason for possessing suitable firearms and ammunition, which I hope provides the reassurance sought by some Members on this point during earlier debates. The clause also means that the .22 rim-fire rifles used on miniature rifle ranges—a type of firearm that is already subject to licensing by police in other circumstances—will rightly be brought within the licensing regime for miniature rifle ranges. Furthermore, the term “miniature rifles” will be more tightly defined so that only the less powerful .22 rim-fire firearms may be used on miniature rifle ranges.
Clause 2 tackles the unlawful manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with the intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police had raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition were too easy to obtain, and were being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds. I know there has been concern about the possibility that this is a back-door way of introducing controls on component parts, or that it will somehow prevent people from home loading their own ammunition. I hope it has been made sufficiently clear in our previous debates that someone with a valid certificate covering the complete rounds they possess will have nothing to fear, and that the measure is aimed at the criminals who seek to manufacture ammunition illegally. Concerns have also been raised—and were touched on by the shadow Minister—about clause 2 not extending to 3D printed ammunition. I hope it will reassure Members to know that such 3D printed items are subject to the law in the same way as any other firearm or ammunition. The fact that a 3D printer may have been used to make ammunition illegally could also be used in proving intent to a court.
Both those measures received support in the public consultation that I mentioned earlier. It was widely acknowledged, by those representing shooting interests as well as those who wish to see tighter firearms controls more generally, that these changes would help to strengthen our firearms controls. The Bill will make a valuable contribution to firearms legislation while also ensuring that those who wish to continue to engage in firearms activities legitimately—whether that involves target shooting at clubs or activity centres, the legitimate home loading of ammunition, or other lawful activities—can continue to do so.
Law enforcement agencies called on the Government to tighten the regulation in these areas and we have responded, but our work in keeping firearms law under review—another issue on which the shadow Minister sought assurances—and continuing to ensure that there are strong gun controls in this country does not stop here. A number of other issues that have rightly been raised during the Bill’s passage are out of scope, but the Government will continue to consider them closely in the context of the reports that have been received about the tragic shootings in various parts of the UK in recent months.
Let me end by thanking, in absentia, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for bringing the Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the shadow Minister for the tone in which, as ever, they have approached this issue. I also put on record my thanks to the Home Office officials who have worked with Ministers in responding to and working on this piece of legislation, and to officials in my own private office in the Ministry of Justice—one of my private secretaries is sitting in the box as we speak—for the speed with which, in recent hours, they have made sure I am fully briefed for this debate. I hope to see the Bill continue to progress through Parliament apace; I look forward to its having a smooth and swift passage through the other place and into law and I fully support what is proposed.
Dr Mullan
With the leave of the House, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I would like to thank the Clerks, the members of the Bill Committee, House staff and all of those who have contributed to the Bill. My hon. Friend wanted me to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), and I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for his considered questions today. It has been a privilege to play a small role on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West to bring this legislation through this stage in the House. I thank the whole House for its support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill 2022-23 View all Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The UK has the least energy-efficient buildings in western Europe. Millions of families are living in cold, damp homes, homes that are crying out for better insulation and for cheaper and cleaner ways of generating and retaining heat. The Government policy to upgrade our housing stock is failing badly. Homes across the UK account for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, much of which is down to poor insulation standards and heat being paid for and then lost unnecessarily.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero said last week that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had established 22 separate schemes to improve energy efficiency by the time he came to office. The majority of them have fallen far short of what is needed, wasting not only money, but precious time in the race against climate change.
While the Government have failed to improve our draughty houses, many have stepped up; I would like to pay brief tribute to the many non-governmental organisations tirelessly researching this area and lobbying the Government for change. I also thank Lord Foster of Bath and the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for tabling a prior version of this Bill in last year’s Session and Ron Bailey for his time and commitment to this cause. I thank Citizens Advice Richmond for inviting me into its office yesterday for a discussion about how this is one of the biggest issues facing tenants in my Richmond Park constituency.
This Bill would set out a legislative roadmap to upgrade homes to energy performance certificate band C by 2033—the minimum standard of energy efficiency that the Government’s own heat and buildings strategy has said is required. Currently, less than half of the buildings in this country meet that standard. How much longer can we kick this can down the road?
The last year has shown us all just how volatile global energy markets are. Soaring energy bills have left vulnerable households paying the price for the Government’s failure to invest in vital home improvements to reduce energy usage. A recent report by Citizens Advice found that the average tenant in a property rated D or below will pay around £350 more for their annual energy bill than someone in a better-insulated property rated C or above. For those in the least efficient homes, that increases to £950 each year.
The economic benefit of higher ratings does not stop solely with households: it is estimated that an EPC C rating could drive £12 billion of investment and save £1.75 billion annually. Not only will householders feel the benefit of improved energy efficiency in their monthly bills, but improved energy efficiency will significantly reduce damp, mould and excessive cold, all of which are detrimental to people’s health and mental wellbeing.
When I spoke to Citizens Advice Richmond yesterday I heard many examples of parents living in damp and mouldy houses and the impact that that is having on their children’s health. I heard of many cases where children are now in and out of hospital with respiratory diseases that can be directly related to the quality of the housing they are living in.
Research shows that homes in EPC bands D to G are 73% more likely to be mouldy or excessively cold than those in bands C or above. Tragically, research also shows that thousands of excess deaths each winter are directly attributable to cold and damp conditions. We must remember that those on the lowest incomes suffer most from the dangerous combination of draughty housing and soaring energy prices. That is why the Bill would put the Government’s target to upgrade all fuel-poor households to EPC rating C by 2030 on a statutory footing, placing a legal obligation on the Government to ensure that action is targeted at those who need it most.
One of the most ludicrous examples of policy failure on energy efficiency was the decision taken by the Government in 2016 to scrap the zero carbon standard for new dwellings. This means that new homes are now being built, eight years later, which will have to be upgraded again in just a few years’ time to meet EPC band C targets. A green home building programme would create thousands of new green jobs, enabling economic growth and adapting our economy to meet future challenges.
The Bill is just one step in the right direction. It would tie the Government to legally binding targets to decarbonise homes and buildings across the country. I accept that there is lots of work to be done to make those targets realistic: on developing green finance solutions, on training for suppliers, on supporting local authorities and on increasing public awareness. However, within those challenges are huge opportunities for cleaner, healthier and cheaper homes fit for the future, homes that benefit both households and the planet. I urge the Government to support the Bill today and to finally take the action that is needed.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very important speech about an issue that is very, very close to my heart. It is an issue on which I have held Westminster Hall debates, written newspaper articles and engaged with my social housing sector. Does she welcome the Government’s announcement this week of additional funding for decarbonisation in social housing? And I have a specific question for her. Where does she expect the cost of decarbonisation in private-owned non-mortgaged properties to fall?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The division between social and private is in many ways an obstacle to achieving our goals on this issue. In social and regulated housing, where there are opportunities perhaps to achieve economies of scale, certainly in whole blocks or whole estates of housing, a lot can be done, but obviously those opportunities are more challenging where private property is concerned. What we need is a range of innovative solutions in the private sector.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
This is a fascinating debate, which I have followed. It has been brought to my attention by land and property holders in my constituency who have a large portfolio of listed and conservation buildings. The Bill drives them into a difficult place. On the one hand, there is a drive to increase efficiency. On the other hand, they are confronted by planning rules which prevent easy modification and adaptation of the structure to, for example, accommodate solar panels. Is the hon. Lady arguing that we should move to an easing of planning regulation to allow efficiency improvements in listed and conservation building stock?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a live issue in my own constituency, he will be pleased to hear. We have conservation areas where people are keen to put solar panels on their roofs and it is possible on one side of the street but not on the other because of the impact on the streetscape. I very much urge local authorities—or whatever the planning authority is; it will be different in different parts—to look at that particular issue. We need to explore and weigh up the gain both for society at large and for individual householders. It will be different in different places. In some cases, it is about how the street looks, what people want to preserve and whether adjustments can be made. In other examples, the fabric of the building itself will need to be preserved.
Before I came into this place in 2019, I was the financial accountant for Historic Royal Palaces. My old office was right in the middle of Hampton Court Palace, so a lot of these issues around fabric of the building are very close to my heart. Interestingly, there is no better place to be on a very, very hot summer’s day than right in the middle of a Tudor palace, with six-foot thick stone walls. I can confirm that it is just about the best possible natural cooling one can have.
Robin Millar
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. We have much in common in our interest in and passion for old buildings. In fact, I came across the statistic that some 95% of conservation and listed buildings are still expected to be in use in 100 years’ time. That creates incredible economic pressure on the market to ensure that efficiencies are delivered, at incredible cost. I ask again, where do we think that cost might be addressed? Is she arguing for an easing of those conservation rules to reduce the cost on that particular sector of conservation and listed buildings?
Sarah Olney
I was coming to the point about the cost, which was raised by the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). We need to rebalance and grasp the importance of energy efficiency right now. It is not just about climate change or fuel bills; it is about health and wellbeing, often of the very poorest in our society—if the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) will forgive me, they are probably less concerned about historic buildings. I mentioned Citizens Advice Richmond; one of its observations is that it is frequently the buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s where they find the most problems with damp and mould.
I fear that we are getting distracted by some of the more minor concerns, when the issue is about the bulk of our housing stock—particularly the housing stock that our most vulnerable and low-income citizens live in—and what we can do. I want to pick up the point about where the cost will come from. Where it is an individual household and it is their responsibility, I want the Government to produce some clearer strategies about how the problem will be tackled. The private sector will then have more incentive to offer competitive options on things such as heat pumps, roof insulation and cavity wall insulation. We need a bigger take-up of those things to create a competitive market, but some of that has to come from the Government taking a lead in the sorts of strategies and products that householders might be tempted to take up.
Peter Gibson
The hon. Lady has been gracious in giving way once again, given the shortage of time. This issue is serious one for property owners. Having had a solid-wall property dry lined and insulated against a solid wall, I have seen the costs myself. Does she agree that it is incumbent on mortgage companies to develop a range of products that would help new homebuyers buying second-hand, older properties, to build in some sort of loan facility to enable such works to be undertaken?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member is right. The sort of innovative products we are looking for are not just construction products, but financial products. Again, it is about opening up a private sector, competitive and well-regulated market that will enable homeowners to make the kind of investments that they will need to make in their own homes. The hon. Member is absolutely right at this time of heightened property values—again, a live issue in my constituency. I saw a league table recently in which Richmond Park is No. 6 for average property prices out of all the constituencies in the country. It costs a great deal already to live in Richmond Park. He is absolutely right that if we want to put an onus on homeowners to upgrade the quality of the properties that they are living in or renting out to other people, we need to offer them options for how they might finance that.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As a fellow London MP, the hon. Lady will recognise the pressures that have been highlighted. But there are parts of the market that are doing that organically already and have not required state intervention. Where there is state intervention, whether national or local, does she agree that it is important that trust is ensured? She may be aware of cases in her constituency of major doubts about the effectiveness of the Mayor of London’s solar scheme. People have signed up for the rollout of solar panels and have paid thousands of pounds, and that has not been delivered.
Sarah Olney
I confess I have not had a huge amount of casework on the solar panel issue. One case was raised with me but specifically on my earlier point about the conservation area. The hon. Member raises a good point about solar panels. I do not know why—a lot of people are asking this—we have not had a more extensive rollout of solar panels already, regardless of whether they are funded by the Mayor of London or anyone else. It is of huge benefit to homeowners to be able to install solar panels and participate in generating their own power and electricity. We really need to look at which policies are stopping people investing in solar panels, and what financial obstacles we may be able to overcome. This is not just about energy efficiency in insulating our homes, but about what more can be done to help people with the cost of fuel bills and keeping their homes warm, and about the health and wellbeing of the nation as a whole.
The Deputy Speaker interrupted the business (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (28 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 1 December.
Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Planning Application Fees Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Miscarriage Leave Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation (Licensing) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (9 December), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 November.
Removal of Titles Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Former Ministers and Prime Ministers (Abolition of Payments) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Plastics (Wet Wipes) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.
Teenagers (Safety and Wellbeing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Free School Meals (Primary Schools) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 30 June.
Elected Representatives (Codes of Conduct) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.
Firearms and Hate Crime Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Sale of Tobacco (Licensing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 15 December.
Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (2 December 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 November.
Caravan Sites Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June.
Kinship Care Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 8 September.
Working Time Regulations (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.
Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 July 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 12 May.
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June.
Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November.
Elections Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to bring forward a debate on the Government’s plans for the introduction of digital IDs. In her response, the right hon. Lady stated that the Government have
“no such plans to introduce the measures”—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 457.]
that I alluded to. On 4 January 2023, the Cabinet Office published a consultation titled “Consultation on draft legislation to support identity verification”. The ministerial foreword to that consultation states:
“This Government has made a commitment to improve the way that data and information is shared and used across the public sector to deliver better, joined up services and exceptional outcomes for our citizens… the government is committed to realising the benefits of digital identity technologies without creating ID cards.”
My question yesterday was substantively about digital ID. The Leader of the House’s answer was demonstrably factually incorrect. I would welcome your advice as to how the Leader of the House may set the record straight, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise this point of order. He is aware that the contents of answers to parliamentary questions and contributions is not a matter for the Chair. However, I must remind the House that the Government’s own ministerial code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors in answers to parliamentary questions at the earliest opportunity. If an error has been made in this instance, I am sure that the Government will seek to correct it as quickly as possible. Of course, the Leader of the House may take the view that there is no inaccuracy.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I welcome to the Front Bench the Minister who will respond to the debate, with whom I had a meeting earlier today. During the course of that meeting, she kindly agreed to come to an early meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which I have the privilege of chairing. At that meeting we will have representatives of victims of vaccine damage. However, as I emphasised to my hon. Friend, we will not have people there who are actively engaged in litigation, because that would be inappropriate.
This debate is about the application of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to those who have been bereaved or suffered adverse reactions to covid-19 vaccines. The Act was extended to apply to such vaccines before they were rolled out, but it is now abundantly clear that the Act is totally inadequate for addressing the needs of most of those who have been adversely affected.
On Wednesday this week, the Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright):
“We are taking steps to reform vaccine damage payment schemes, by modernising the operations and providing more timely outcomes”.—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]
The Prime Minister did not answer or even refer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s requests that the Government should change the £120,000 maximum payment for those seriously injured and end the denial of any payment to those disabled by less than 60%. That was despite the Prime Minister having received notice of my right hon. and learned Friend’s question, and the fact that both he and I had raised the same points with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care weeks ago.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I commend my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. Has he had time to consider the paper produced this week by the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, which found a strongly significant correlation between covid-19 vaccine uptake in 2021 and excess deaths in the first nine months of 2022 across the European Union and the European economic area? In fact, the correlation was so strong that it could be stated that for every 1% increase in vaccination rates in 2021, there was a 0.1% increase in mortality in 2022.
Sir Christopher Chope
I did notice that document, because it was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend. May I suggest to him that he tries to engage the good offices of our right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee? I am delighted to see him in his place this afternoon, because I know that this issue is close to his heart as well.
The Minister confirmed to me earlier that the Government’s answer to both those questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam put to the Prime Minister is no. It is rather sad that that is so, and it is regrettable that the Prime Minister did not put that on the record himself.
This month, we have already discussed in this House the scandal surrounding the supply of contaminated blood and the false imprisonment of postmasters as a result of the Horizon system. In both cases, after long resistance, the Government were eventually forced into accepting compensation schemes. If they are interested in tackling the developing scandal over covid-19 vaccine damage victims, they can and must act now.
I fear, however, that the Government have no will so to do, because they are still in denial about the whole issue. Why do I use that expression? I do so because at a meeting on 21 April last year, I asked the then vaccines Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), whether she accepted that some people had died as a direct result of having received the covid-19 vaccination. She declined to answer the question at the meeting and said that she would write to me. She did not do so, so I then had to put down a parliamentary written question—UIN 2325. She ducked that question.
I will therefore ask the same question again to the Minister today, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), bearing in mind that we now know that more than 50 coroners’ verdicts have confirmed that people have died as a direct result of covid-19 vaccines, and that her Department has been making awards under the 1979 Act to families who have been bereaved on the basis that their loved ones died as a direct result. Will the Government therefore unequivocally say today that they do accept that some people have died as a direct result of having received a covid-19 vaccination?
Was it not bizarre that all the Prime Minister could say on Wednesday, when told about Jamie Scott spending four weeks in a coma and remaining seriously disabled as a result of a covid vaccine, was:
“I am very sorry to hear about the case”?
Then, in an extraordinary non sequitur, the Prime Minister added:
“In the extremely rare case of a potential injury from a vaccine covered by the scheme, a one-off payment can be awarded.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]
However, Jamie Scott’s injury is not a potential injury, but a real and substantial one. Nor was it caused by any old vaccine; it was caused by a new experimental covid vaccine.
Sadly, Jamie Scott’s case is not unique. I have received hundreds of distressing letters and emails from both victims and bereaved relatives, who are desperate for the Government and the NHS to listen. Several are from my own constituency. I will quote briefly from one letter, received on 18 March, from a 24-year-old, previously employed in a good job in financial services. He had a Pfizer vaccine booster in February 2022 and says:
“Within days of the dose, I started experiencing nasty symptoms that resembled those of an autoimmune disease. The symptoms include nausea, headaches, skin rashes and other immune issues. Despite numerous Doctors visits, blood tests, X-rays and medicinal prescriptions, Doctors have been unable to help ease symptoms at all. Symptoms have worsened with time and I have been unable to work over the past seven months or so. I have been unable to receive any disability benefits and have been left to use my entire life savings to fund my food and bills.”
An expert rheumatologist has now confirmed the link between my constituent’s symptoms and the Pfizer vaccine. My constituent asks me—and I, in turn, ask the Minister—will the Government admit that there are cases where these vaccines have caused reactions in people? Will they promise to provide further support and research funding for how these conditions can be managed and, hopefully, resolved?
My constituent is but one of so many who have suffered, and continue to suffer, because they did the right thing, on the advice of the Government, and received their jabs. The Express, the first mainstream newspaper to start giving the issue some publicity, began its crusade for justice for jab victims with four pages in one of its editions last week. On 15 March, its leading article, entitled “Injection of faith needed”, spoke for many when it said: “We must take care of the small number of people who suffered side effects as a result of their jabs. Innocent people who have suffered terribly must not be denied the damages they deserve. This is a matter of justice.”
The current situation is that over 4,000 claims have been made under the 1979 Act. Over the past five months, new claims have been running at the rate of 250 per month. Some 2,800 claims remain outstanding, and only a surprisingly and disturbingly small number have so far been successful. I shall now try to shame the Government into action by contrasting their head-in-the-sand approach to vaccine damage victims with what is happening in Germany.
On 12 March, Professor Dr Karl Lauterbach, Germany’s Federal Minister for Health, gave a disarmingly candid interview to the Germany TV news channel ZDF. The Minister is a scientist and physician of note, and had previously been professor of health economics and epidemiology at the University of Cologne and at Harvard. As the adviser to then Chancellor Angela Merkel at the beginning of the covid pandemic, he took a very hard line and publicly said on numerous occasions that the vaccines must be taken and that they were “without side effects”. He has now admitted in that interview that what he said about them being “without side effects” was a gross exaggeration. That is disarmingly frank, is it not?
He conceded that one in 10,000 of those vaccinated against covid-19 in Germany had experienced severe adverse effects. He described these “unfortunate cases” as heartbreaking, confirming that some of the severe disablements will be permanent. He added, “It’s really tragic”. The Minister said that Germany does not yet have drugs for treatment and that care entitlements are defined very narrowly, but he recognised the need to get faster at recognising vaccine injuries as the understanding of adverse events increases. He promised significant extra resources and said that he was in discussions with German Treasury Ministers to address issues around post-vaccine syndrome.
Sadly, our own Government do not even recognise post-vaccine syndrome. I have asked them whether they would report on what has been happening in University Hospital Marburg in Germany, where much work is being done on the diagnosis and treatment of post-vaccination syndrome. I suggested that it might be useful for them to have some discussions with the hospital. In answer to a parliamentary written question on 16 November—UIN 88798—I was told that there are
“no current plans to do so.”
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that position, because it is important that we should get into alignment with Germany, whose health system is much more successful than our own. Germany has moved from wanting to get everybody vaccinated, although that was all done “voluntarily”, to recognising now that it must do its best to look after those for whom the vaccine was bad news.
What has happened over the past two years in Germany is that more than 300,000 cases of vaccine side-effects have accumulated in the Ministry’s own system, and more and more people are lodging compensation claims against the state, which, based on the contracts that Germany signed with the EU manufacturers, is liable for any vaccine-related damage. Meanwhile, the subject of vaccine injuries has begun to be openly discussed in the German mainstream media. Let us hope that we will see a bit of that developing in our own country, because one of the frustrations of the victims of these vaccines is that there seems to be much reluctance in the mainstream media to engage on this issue.
Now we have a situation in which the German Federal Minister of Health is saying, “let’s see if we can get some help from the pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily help compensate those harmed by the vaccines.” He then goes on to say that that is because the profits have been “exorbitant”. Just a year ago, he had said that the pharmaceutical companies would not get rich on the vaccines, but it is one of the privileges of Ministers across the world to be able to eat their words when the facts change.
In my submission, the Government here need to completely change their approach and become much more realistic, accommodating and, dare one say it, compassionate towards those who did the right thing by the public interest and accepted the vaccines.
May I ask my hon. Friend a whole series of questions? It will not be possible for people to follow all of the questions I want to ask, because I do not have time to read out all of them. Are the Government aware of the 2017 case in the Court of Appeal where the Court said that, for VDPS purposes, loss of faculties had no real relationship to the kind of injuries set out in schedule 2 of the relevant statute relating to calculating the percentage of disablement? Schedule 2 calculates physical disability—for example, an amputation below the knee could be calculated at 60%. The Court decision was that that should not be some kind of straitjacket, but it seems that it is being used as a kind of straitjacket in the assessment of covid vaccine claims.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government are following the decision made by the Court of Appeal? Will she also reconsider the amount of the £120,000 payment? Its value has been eroded by inflation since 2007. Can she explain why there are still no plans to align the disablement threshold for the VDPS with that in the England infected blood support scheme, under which it is possible to get £100,000 without any evidence of disability? There does not seem to be any alignment between that scheme and the VDPS.
The Government said that within 56 days of receiving any prevention of future deaths report from a coroner, they would report back on it. The only such report made to the Government relating to this issue was delivered on 13 October. Will my hon. Friend explain why there has still not been a response? In the light of what is happening in Germany, will she agree to set up specialist clinics to look at post-vaccine situations? How many people are now working on vaccine claims, and does she see any prospect of the enormous backlog being reduced quickly?
There are lots of questions there, but they are only a small sample of those that I have. I look forward to members of the APPG raising further questions with the Minister when she comes to our meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this important debate. I met him earlier to listen to many of his concerns on the issue. We know that, unfortunately, there have been some rare instances in which individuals have suffered possible harm following a covid-19 vaccination. Of course, my sympathy goes out to them and their families. The Government are keen to help those who feel that they have been affected by this issue; that is why I have agreed to meet the all-party parliamentary group and Members from across the House who have concerns on the issue.
The vaccine damage payment is a one-off, tax-free payment to individuals who have been found, on the balance of probabilities, to have been harmed by any vaccine, including covid vaccines. It was established over 40 years ago, and provides support to those who have experienced severe disablement that could have been, on the balance of probabilities, caused by a vaccine against one of the conditions listed in the legislation. The NHS Business Services Authority took over the scheme in November 2021 to try to improve the process, and speed up the response to and assessment of applicants. Assessments are done on a case-by-case basis by experienced, independent medical assessors, who have undertaken specialised training in vaccine damage and disability assessment. That is partly why the process can take so long. I will touch on the other reasons.
My hon. Friend raised concern about the payment of £120,000. I have listened to his point; indeed, it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions this week. It is important to note that the amount is a one-off, lump-sum payment. It is not designed to cover lifetime costs for those impacted. It is in addition to other support packages, such as statutory sick pay, universal credit, employment and support allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payments. Also, it has increased since the scheme was put in place; it was just £10,000 in 1979. The amount has been raised several times, the current level having been set in 2007. The amount will be kept under review. I will take away the points that my hon. Friend made in this debate and in our meeting beforehand. As he is aware, a successful claim under the scheme does not preclude individuals from bringing a claim for damages through the courts. There are a number of claims under way, and I cannot comment on those specifically.
My hon. Friend also touched on the 60% disability threshold, which was lowered from the initial 80% threshold in 2002, to remain aligned with the definition of severe disablement set out by the industrial injuries disablement benefit, so that there is consistency across the board. Only 67 of more than 4,000 rejected claims were rejected as not being eligible for the scheme, on the basis of not meeting the 60% disability threshold. Claims are usually rejected for other reasons, so the threshold is not affecting a significant number of claims. We do not see the threshold as a big barrier to those who want to make a claim but, of course, we will keep it under review as the scheme progresses.
The BSA took over the scheme in November 2021, because we found that claims were taking a while. A key issue was getting access to patient records. NHS BSA has done a huge amount of work in that short space of time. On average, it is now taking around six months to process a claim, whereas it was previously taking significantly longer. The BSA has put in place digital modernisation processes that allow for a quicker, easier and faster application process. It has also put in place a strategic research agreement so that patients who make a claim can give consent on application, which enables the team to request the patient’s records from hospitals, GPs and other organisations to be able to determine the claim.
While the new process has bedded in, NHS BSA has introduced quality standards. Although everyone has the right of appeal if their claim is rejected, we want to get it right first time. Making sure those quality assurance processes are in place means that we determine eligible claims first time. The last thing we want is for people to have to appeal because the initial assessment was not correct.
We have also increased staff numbers. The scheme had four members of staff when it sat with the Department for Work and Pensions but, because of the sheer number of claims, more than 80 people are now taking part in the process to assess claims quicker.
I hope I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend, but I will touch on some of the issues around vaccine safety in my remaining couple of minutes. I recognise that he has concerns about the vaccine, and that is why we have instigated further research. There is £110 million going into the National Institute for Health and Care Research to fund covid vaccine research, and that includes vaccine safety and the robust monitoring of adverse events. We have also allocated £1.6 million to researchers at the University of Liverpool, to understand the rare condition of blood clotting with low platelets following vaccination.
Andrew Bridgen
Will the Minister answer the question I asked in the Chamber last week? Why has the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency decided to stop publishing updates to the yellow card scheme relating to covid-19 injuries?
Maria Caulfield
I am happy to write to the MHRA to get a response for the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I hope he will be reassured that the Government are investing in research on vaccine safety both at the University of Liverpool and at the National Institute for Health and Care Research, because we want to reassure people about the safety of vaccines.
On the VDPS, I want to reassure those making claims that the Government want to support them through the process. I have not touched on it much in my response, but I am keen to reassure those who feel they have suffered and who are struggling to get healthcare for their symptoms that we are looking at this.
Sir Christopher Chope
As I understand it, the Minister’s time will be up at eight minutes past 3, so can she now explain whether the Government will accept that post-vaccine syndrome is clinically recognised? Will she divert resources specifically to that issue?
Maria Caulfield
I am not going to commit to that specific point on the Floor of the House, but I will commit to this: if people who feel that they have symptoms from the vaccine—that includes a range of symptoms—are struggling to get the healthcare they need, when I come to the APPG I will want to look at the sort of symptoms they are experiencing and help them to get the care and support that they are struggling to get at the moment. It is the same with long covid: there is such a range of symptoms. What we have found in setting up specific long covid clinics is that they have not always been able to cover the wide range of symptoms that people have had. I am very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend at the APPG.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend refers to long covid clinics, but people who are suffering from the consequences of vaccine damage feel that they are being treated differentially and in an inferior way. If we have clinics for long covid, why do we not have clinics for post-vaccine syndrome?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend. The point I was trying to make is that we have set up long covid clinics, but they have not always addressed the needs of those who are suffering long covid, because they have such a wide variety of symptoms. What I can say to those who feel that they have experienced side effects from the vaccine is that I am very happy to meet them, hear about those symptoms and see what more we can do to support them in getting the care and services that they find they are struggling to access at the moment. I just want to reassure my hon. Friend that I have taken his points seriously—we do not have our head in the sand. I am very happy to meet the all-party parliamentary group and those who are concerned about their experience.
We will continue to prioritise improving the operations of the VDPS: six months is the average time taken, but ideally we want to make it quicker and more efficient for those who put in a claim. We are working alongside the BSA team, who are doing an amazing job to turn around so many claims as quickly as possible within the limits of getting notes and access to information from a variety of sources. That is often challenging, particularly when there are different computer systems and some paper notes are still in operation across healthcare settings. They have a very tough job, but they are trying to do it as speedily as possible by modernising and scaling up operations to improve the experience for those who are claiming, as well as helping those who want to make a claim.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Energy Efficiency of Buildings: Funding
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
My noble friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lord Callanan) made the following statement on 22 March: Region PSDS HUG SHDF East Midlands £18,112,366 £3,291,300** £74,715,671 East of England £14,677,719 £23,577,300 £83,628,477 London £44,280,137 £12,006,000 £131,724,938 North East £7,636,389 £28,576,000 £29,355,551 North West £44,555,899 £83,885,000 £105,371,309 South East £108,324,556 £161,237,898 £128,906,218 South West £33,450,968 £77,514,032 £80,236,981 West Midlands £88,371,731 £152,745,310 £93,593,216 Yorkshire and the Humber £21,737,561 £41,144,920 £ 50,053,929 Across regions £26,688,898 - - Scotland* £1,221,871 - -
Today the Government are announcing £1.8 billion of funding to cut the emissions and boost the energy efficiency of homes and public buildings across England.
The investment will further reduce energy bills for householders and businesses, as part of the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve inflation and ease the cost of living. Altogether, 115,000 homes will benefit from energy efficiency and low carbon heating upgrades, along with 144 public sector organisations responsible for hospitals, schools, leisure centres, museums, universities and other buildings.
It is being delivered through the Home Upgrade Grant (HUG), Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) and Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS).
In 2019, the UK became the first major economy in the world to legally commit to end our contribution to global warming by 2050. This is a huge challenge. But it is also an unprecedented opportunity.
The UK has already shown that environmental action can go hand-in-hand with economic success, having grown our economy by more than three-quarters while cutting emissions by over 40% since 1990.
The effort will be shared across many sectors, and decarbonising the energy used in buildings, and increasing energy efficiency will be a vital component.
The UK is home to around 30 million buildings which are responsible for 31% of UK emissions. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe, over 80% of buildings still rely on high carbon fossil fuels for heating and have low levels of thermal efficiency.
To reach our net zero target by 2050 we need to decarbonise the way we heat and cool our homes and workplaces, and to ensure that in the near term we meet our fuel poverty targets and emissions reduction targets.
This £1.8 billion investment will be critical in supporting our commitment made in 2022 to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030 against 2021 levels.
The Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund and Home Upgrade Grant
Through the SHDF Wave 2.1 and HUG 2 the Government are awarding a significant injection of funding worth £1.4 billion to local authorities and providers of social housing.
An additional £1.1 billion in match funding for social housing is being provided by local authorities and providers of social housing, bringing the total investment to £2.5 billion to upgrade social and private homes in England.
The grant funding will be invested from April 2023 to March 2025, although delivery on the SHDF can continue with the use of match funding until September 2025.
The money will go towards improvements to social households and private, low income, off-gas grid households with an EPC rating of D or below and could save homes occupants between £220 and £400 a year on energy bills.
Energy cutting and cost saving measures provided through the schemes include external wall insulation, cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, new windows and doors and draft proofing measures, as well as heat pumps and solar panel installation.
These schemes will also support around 20,000 jobs in the construction and home retrofit sectors, helping to deliver on our promise to grow the economy and create better paid jobs, whilst supporting families across the country.
The funding awarded through these schemes continues the investment through “Help to Heat” Schemes which has already seen:
Over £240 million already awarded to the SHDF Demonstrator and SHFD Wave 1 projects, indicating the Governments continued support to the £3.8 billion manifesto commitment between now and 2030 to deliver energy efficiency improvements in social housing.
Over 37,000 households have seen energy efficiency upgrades as part of the first two phases of the local authority delivery scheme, with a further 20,000-28,000 homes expected as part of the sustainable warmth competition.
In addition to the SHDF and HUG, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will also use EC04 and ECO+ to accelerate our efforts to improve homes to meet fuel poverty targets and the Government have committed to a four-year, £4 billion extension and expansion of ECO with EC04. We have announced a further £1 billon extension of the scheme through ECO+ to start in Spring 2023.
Public sector decarbonisation scheme
Over £409 million of grant funding has also been awarded through the Government’s public sector decarbonisation scheme. This Phase 3b of the scheme will support 144 public sector organisations across 171 projects to undertake low carbon heating and energy efficiency measures across hundreds of buildings.
These projects will not only help reduce the carbon emissions of these public buildings but save them money on their energy bills and ultimately, save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in the long-term.
Hospitals, schools, leisure centres, universities and other vital public service buildings across England are set to benefit from the scheme.
£2 billion has now been awarded across over 900 projects to decarbonise the public sector across all phases of the scheme to date, and even more funding through Phase 3b is to come as applications are assessed and approved.
Today’s £409 million is part of the wider £2.5 billion package that this Government have committed to spending on upgrading public sector buildings between 2020 and 2025, supporting this Government’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037.
Funding through the schemes will be allocated across England based on the following allocations:
* The Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme was open to applications from public sector bodies in England and areas of reserved public services across the UK.
** Further funding is available to the region via the Midlands Net Zero Hub which represents £138 million of grant funding across the Midlands
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has also partnered with the energy systems catapult to launch a freely accessible suite of tools, templates, and guidance to support the public sector in further decarbonising their sites.
This support will help public sector bodies through the entire decarbonisation lifecycle, from the first stages of developing a strategy, through funding, installation, and completion, to help make achieving net zero sites and energy savings simpler.
Energy efficiency taskforce
The Government have launched an energy efficiency taskforce to support a step change in the reduction of energy demand through accelerated delivery of energy efficiency across the economy. It will help to support the Government’s ambition to reduce total UK energy demand by 15% from 2021 levels by 2030 across domestic and commercial buildings and industrial processes.
Future funding
£6 billion of new Government funding will be made available from 2025 to 2028, in addition to the £6.6 billion allocated in this Parliament. This provides long-term funding certainty, supporting the growth of supply chains, and ensuring we can scale up our delivery over time.
[HCWS669]
Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council met today, 24 March 2023, in London, with delegates attending in person and by video conference.
The meeting was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and European Commission vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. Representatives from the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive attended, as did representatives from the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. 27 EU member state representatives also attended. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.
The Partnership Council discussed implementation of the TCA and cooperation in a range of areas including energy, regulation, security and Union Programmes.
The Partnership Council supervises the operation of the TCA, providing strategic direction to the work of the Trade Partnership Committee and 18 specialised committees.
The UK restated its commitment to co-operating with the EU through the Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council.
[HCWS670]
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met today, 24 March 2023, in London with delegates attending in person and by video conference. The meeting was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and European Commission vice-president Maroš Šefčovič. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.
The Committee welcomed the agreement of the Windsor framework and adopted the new arrangements set out within the framework. The adoption of this agreement restores the free flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through a new green lane; it gives the elected representatives of Northern Ireland a veto over new laws that apply there; and it protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union through fixing practical problems including on pets, parcels and medicines and ensuring that UK decisions on tax and spend benefit people and businesses in Northern Ireland as they do in Great Britain.
The Committee addressed other important issues including the rights of UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. Both sides agreed on the importance of continuing to support these citizens and welcomed the efforts made over the past year to do so, including additional funding provided by both sides to external organisations.
The Committee also received an update on the work of the withdrawal agreement specialised committees since the last meeting on 21 February 2022 and adopted the withdrawal agreement annual report for the year 2021 pursuant to article 164(6) of the withdrawal agreement.
The Committee adopted one decision laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework.
The Committee also adopted two recommendations:
on market surveillance and enforcement,
on article 13(3a) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
Both the UK and EU made five joint declarations relating to the Windsor Framework:
Joint declaration No 1/2023
Joint declaration on the application of Article 10(1) of the Windsor framework
Joint declaration on Article 13(3a) of the Windsor framework
Joint declaration No 2/2023
Joint declaration on the VAT regime for goods not being at risk for the Union’s internal market and on the VAT arrangements for cross border refunds.
The UK made five unilateral declarations and the EU made unilateral declarations noting these:
Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the 1998 agreement (annex I to the decision No 1/2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework)
Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on market surveillance and enforcement, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union
Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on export procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union
Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on the democratic consent mechanism in article 18 of the Windsor framework, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union.
Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on strengthening enforcement action for goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union.
[HCWS671]
Building Safety: Responsible Actors Scheme and Developer Remediation Contract
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
On 14 March, I announced that 39 developers had signed the developer remediation contract. By signing the contract, they made binding commitments to fix or pay to fix life-critical fire safety defects in all buildings in England over 11 metres that they had a role in developing or refurbishing over the past 30 years. This amounts to an irreversible commitment to making safe at least 1,100 buildings at a cost of over £2 billion.
Update on responsible actors scheme
Last week, I also told the House that there will be consequences for companies that do not sign the contract. I warned that they will be prohibited from commencing developments in England or gaining building control sign-off on their developments, unless they sign and adhere to the contract. I said that we would lay regulations this spring to establish a responsible actors scheme. The regulations will recognise the positive action of responsible developers and will make sure that eligible developers who do not sign and comply with the contract will be unable to be members of the scheme, and therefore be subject to prohibitions. I will lay regulations that will, with Parliament’s consent, bring the scheme into operation before the summer recess.
Today, I am publishing the key features of the responsible actors scheme on gov.uk and placing a copy of the information in the libraries of both Houses. The key features document sets out how the scheme will work, the likely eligibility criteria and membership conditions for the first phase of the scheme, how developers will apply to join the scheme and the prohibitions that will be imposed on eligible developers that fail to sign the contract and comply with its terms.
Developers who want to be part of the scheme will need to sign the developer remediation contract and comply with its terms. In its first phase, the scheme will focus on larger residential property developers and developers who developed multiple tall residential buildings known to have life-critical fire safety defects. Over time, I intend to expand the scheme to cover even more of those who developed unsafe 11 metre-plus residential buildings and should pay to fix them.
Eligible developers will be invited to join the scheme by a statutory deadline or provide evidence that they do not in fact meet the eligibility criteria. Any eligible developer who chooses not to join the scheme, or who is expelled from the scheme as a result of a material or persistent breach of its conditions, will be added to a list of developers who will not be permitted to carry out major development or secure building control sign-offs.
The message to those developers who have yet to sign the contract, their shareholders and investors could not be clearer. The responsible actors scheme is coming. Only developers who behave responsibly will be trusted to build the homes of the future. Any eligible developers who fail to do the right thing will need to find a new line of work.
Update on signatories to the developer remediation contract
At the time of my statement of 14 March, 11 developers had yet to sign. I named those companies and called on their directors to reflect on their future and do the right thing. Today, I can confirm that 4 of those 11 companies have since signed the contract: Ballymore, Lendlease, London Square and Telford Homes. The 7 developers who have yet to sign the contract are: Abbey Developments, Avant, Dandara, Emerson Group (Jones Homes), Galliard Homes, Inland Homes and Rydon Homes. Some of those companies have told us that they remain committed to protecting leaseholders and taxpayers from having to pay, and claim that they will sign the contract in coming days.
As I made plain last week, I will write to local authorities and building inspectors to explain the consequences for those companies that remain non-signatories at the point that the regulations creating the responsible actors scheme come into force. I will suggest action that local authorities may want to take to be prepared for implementation of the scheme, to ensure that any companies that do not wish to act responsibly do not profit from that behaviour—and that the public is protected as a result.
Given possible market sensitivities, I notified the London stock exchange about the key features document.
[HCWS668]
House of Lords
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 to 21, Schedule 2, Clauses 22 to 32, Schedule 3, Clauses 33 to 52, Schedule 4, Clauses 53 and 54, Schedule 5, Clauses 55 to 95, Schedule 6, Clauses 96 to 128, Schedule 7, Clause 129, Schedule 8, Clauses 130 to 133, Schedule 9, Clauses 134 to 154, Schedules 10 and 11, Clause 155, Schedule 12, Clause 156, Schedule 13, Clause 157, Schedule 14, Clauses 158 to 163, Schedule 15, Clauses 164 to 170, Schedule 16, Clauses 171 to 199, Schedule 17, Clauses 200 to 234, Schedule 18, Clauses 235 to 249, Schedule 19, Clauses 250 to 254, Schedule 20, Clauses 255 to 270, Title.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 View all Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords across the House for their support for this important piece of legislation. I am very grateful to the Legislation Office and the Minister at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for all the help and support I have received on the Bill’s journey. I also record my thanks to Sir Christopher Chope for taking the Bill through the other place. As I stated at Second Reading, the purpose of this legislation is to bring fairness to park home residents. Through this short but important Bill, we are doing that. I therefore beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that this is a sensible, practical Bill, and we have supported it all the way through its passage through the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for steering it so well through this House and Sir Christopher Chope for taking it through the other place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to give my support and that of the Government to the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister for his expert and committed stewardship of it, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in its passage through your Lordships’ House. It is also right that we acknowledge and thank my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch for his work in the other place on this important Bill. It is down to him and to my noble friend that we have the Bill in front of us today.
This simple but effective Bill is one step in making a much-needed change to the lives of all park home residents. When enacted, it will help residents with cost of living pressures by changing the inflationary index used in pitch fee reviews from RPI to the lower CPI. This will mean that pitch fee increases and residents’ income will be subject to the same measures of inflation. But there is still more we can and must do to improve the lives of those residents, and we will continue our reform programme to bring about more effective and modern regulation of the sector. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and express my strong support for his Bill.
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill [HL]
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I request your Lordships’ patience for a few minutes as I make a few remarks. I express my deep gratitude to all those who have supported this Private Member’s Bill and the effort to remove the two-child limit. I thank those across all Benches who have contributed during the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who, for much of the time I sought to highlight the wrong of the two-child limit, was the Minister who had to respond. She was always willing to engage and debate with me. We did not reach agreement, but I publicly thank her for the way that she worked with me.
I recognise particularly the work of the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the North East Child Poverty Commission, and their staff, who have provided valuable support and encouragement throughout this process. I publicly thank my two parliamentary assistants who have worked with me on the Bill, Emily King and Becky Plummer. They have been superb. I also thank Kim Johnson MP, who has agreed to take the Bill forward in the other place, and many other MPs who have already promised their support.
In less than two weeks, it will be the six-year anniversary of the introduction of the two-child limit, restricting universal credit support to only the first two children in a family. The policy was originally introduced to ensure that
“people on benefit should face the same choices as those in work and those not on benefits”,
while driving real action to
“make the biggest difference to the most disadvantaged children now and in future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/15; cols. 1258-63.]
It has indeed made a difference to those children’s lives, though regrettably not the one that was intended. While the policy aimed to address the root causes of poverty, the two-child limit has instead become the greatest contributor to driving more children into poverty. It impacts an estimated 1.3 million children, disproportionately affecting children of certain religions and ethnic-minority backgrounds.
Just this week, Barnardo’s has included in its new report, A Crisis on our Doorstep, a recommendation that the policy should be removed. Most families that it applies to are already in work, negating the reasoning behind the policy of ensuring that those on benefits face the same decisions as those in work. In some circumstances, the policy has forced parents to instead make a different decision—the choice between terminating an otherwise wanted pregnancy or raising a family for which they cannot properly provide. That is a choice no parent should be faced with.
Life can be unpredictable, and larger families who fall on hard times, whether it is due to losing a job, falling ill or experiencing a pandemic, have no guarantee that they will be able to afford even the essentials. There is no longer a safety net to catch them and help put them back on their feet. My hope is that the Bill will change this. Through removing the two-child limit, each and every child will be valued, and children will no longer be reduced to a number but be seen as individuals with worth and potential. Ultimately, I hope that the Bill will mark one step towards making child poverty in this country a matter for the history books. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who cannot be here today due to ill health. I will not detain the House for long, but I commend the right reverend Prelate on the perseverance he has shown in raising this issue with Ministers in every conceivable way, in Oral Questions and debates, by publishing reports, in meetings with Ministers, and now through a Private Member’s Bill. In doing so, he has given us the chance not just to discuss the important issue of the two-child limit but to highlight the growing problem of child poverty in Britain today. Sending the Bill to the other place will now give MPs the opportunity to reflect on the important issues it raises. However, before the Bill reaches them, it may be helpful if Ministers could do two things.
First, Ministers can clarify what they are trying to achieve through this policy, because it has felt a bit of a slippery target. It was initially about saving money to reduce the deficit, even though evidence now shows that the money the coalition Government saved on benefit cuts was then spent on tax cuts. Then it was about being fair to those in work, even though the two-child limit affects in-work benefits such as universal credit, and then, at least implicitly, it was to affect decisions on how many children people have. Since the evidence suggests that people hit by the two-child limit are not having any fewer children, and since most people hit are in work, can the Minister tell the House whether the policy has been a success?
Secondly, the right reverend Prelate asked at Second Reading whether the Government would introduce an impact assessment. That is not unreasonable, given that the policy has now been in operation for over six years. The then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, replied:
“To be truthful and straightforward, I cannot commit to an impact assessment. I do not believe, with what I know, that the Government would welcome from me the request that he has made”.—[Official Report, 8/7/22; col. 1228.]
The fact that Ministers in the other place would not like being asked to do it is not a good reason for the Government to refuse to tell us what the impact of the policy would be. Will this Minister be brave enough to go and ask the Secretary of State to produce an impact assessment? That would inform the debate in the other place rather well. I look forward to his reply.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing the Bill to the House and giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I thank those who have participated and engaged on the Bill.
The Government think that it is of utmost importance to support children and families and are committed to helping parents into work. That requires a balanced system that provides strong work incentives and support for those who need it, but which ensures a sense of fairness to the taxpayer and many working families who do not see their incomes rise when they have more children. We believe that the policy to support a maximum of two children is a proportionate way to achieve these objectives. That our overall approach is working is evidenced by the fact that, between 2016 and 2022, the number of people in couples with children in employment has increased by 372,000—a 2.7 percentage point increase in the employment rate for this group. However, we recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family. That is why exceptions have been put in place to protect certain groups.
Child benefit may be paid for all children, plus the additional amount in child tax credit or indeed universal credit for any qualifying disabled children or qualifying disabled young people. Additional help for eligible childcare costs through working tax credit and universal credit is available, regardless of the total number of children in the household.
The most suitable way to lift children out of poverty is by supporting parents into, and to progress in, work wherever possible. The Government have consistently said that the best way to support people’s living standards is through good work, better skills and higher wages. The reduction in the universal credit taper rate and the £500 increase to the work allowance, in addition to the normal benefits uprating, alongside the landmark Kickstart and Restart schemes, demonstrated my department’s commitment to supporting families to move into or to progress in work.
The Government clearly recognise that high childcare costs can affect parents’ decisions to take up paid work or increase their working hours, which is why the changes to the universal credit childcare element announced in the Spring Budget 2023 will provide generous additional financial support to parents moving into work and/or increasing their working hours.
The department will exempt any flexible support fund payment for up-front childcare costs made to childcare providers from the universal credit childcare cost calculation when parents move into work or significantly increase their working hours. In practice, this means that the parent will be reimbursed for up to 85% of that FSF payment, as if they had paid it themselves. This provides parents with a significant payment of childcare costs, up front, to use for their next set of childcare costs, thereby easing universal credit claimants into the universal credit childcare costs payment cycle.
The department will also increase the generosity of the universal credit childcare costs caps, allowing parents to claim back over £300 more for one child or over £500 for two or more children of their childcare costs per month. This increase is roughly in line with CPI since 2006, and will increase the caps from £646 for one child and £1,100 for two or more children to £950 and £1,600 respectively.
By September 2025, eligible working parents of children aged nine months to when they start school will be able to get 30 hours of free childcare in England.
The Bill introduced by the right reverend Prelate seeks to remove the limit on the number of children or qualifying young persons included in the calculation of an award of universal credit. The Government have a range of policies which support children and families across the tax and benefits system and public services. However, this requires striking a balance, and the Government’s view is that providing support for a maximum of two children in universal credit and child tax credit ensures fairness between claimants and those who support themselves solely through work.
As regards the noble Lord’s question to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, regarding an impact assessment, I will certainly feed that request back to the department.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the Minister for their comments, and I thank the Minister for agreeing to feed back about the impact assessment—that would be very helpful. It would serve the Government well to respond to all the reports that keep coming from the organisations that show how damaging this policy is in terms of increasing the number of children in poverty. This is not the time to reopen the debate, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am not going to let this go.
Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 View all Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 November 2022 - (30 Nov 2022)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to present this Bill to your Lordships’ House today for its Second Reading. I thank all noble Lords who have signed up to speak and look forward to each of the contributions that will follow shortly.
I have been a supporter of co-operatives in all their forms for more than 40 years. I am one of a small group of Labour and Co-operative MPs and Peers sitting in Parliament. The Co-operative Party, of which I am a member, has since 1918 had an agreement with the Labour Party that it seeks representation on public bodies only jointly with it. The Co-operative Party today is proud to have 28 MPs, 16 Peers, 11 Members of the Scottish Parliament, 16 Members of the Senedd in Wales, five metro mayors and nearly 1,000 councillors elected in England, Scotland and Wales. I am a member of the Co-operative Group and, as detailed in my entry on the register, a director of the London Mutual Credit Union, one of the biggest credit unions in the United Kingdom. I first joined the old Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society 43 years ago—I know I do not look old enough—following a meeting with my noble friend Lady Thornton, who at that time was working for it; we have been friends ever since.
This is a small, two-clause Bill. It is another step along the road of reforming and developing the legislative framework to support the sector. I place on record my special thanks to the Member for Preston in the other place, Sir Mark Hendrick MP, for steering this Bill through the other place so skilfully, and also to Peter Hunt and Mark Willetts, the team at Mutuo, for the work they undertook in devising the Bill. I also thank officials at the Treasury for their work in getting us to the place today where the Government are happy to support the Bill. I am still struggling to get such a positive response to my other Private Member’s Bill on residential leasehold, but we struggle on with that one.
The Bill is all about protection. It is about creating the mechanism to enable mutual organisations to opt in to a restriction on the use of their assets. This is permissive, not mandatory. If a mutual organisation does not want to use the powers in the Bill, it does not have to. It allows the Treasury to make regulations that in turn will allow various mutuals, if they so wish, to opt in to a restriction on the use of their assets. Equally, those that do not elect to opt in are free to carry on as they do now. That is a very important point for the House to note, and one of the reasons why the Bill is structured the way it is. The Bill is necessary, as it enables a pathway to protect and preserve members’ accumulated assets from those who would like to mount a raid on them for profit and gain for themselves. In many cases, these assets are considerable and have been accumulated over many years and generations.
As part of our mixed economy, co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies have their role to play, and the environment they operate in should be as supportive as possible, allowing them to remain true to their founding principles and flourish. This Bill will help them do that with the knowledge that there is a mechanism that they can take up to provide a layer of protection to maintain mutual capital for the purpose intended, if they themselves decide they need this protection.
There are important differences between companies and mutuals, which the Bill is trying to protect. Noble Lords will be aware that members of a company have the right to a share of the distributed profits, based on their shareholding, and to a share of the underlying value of the company. The more capital you own, the greater your share of the profits and the value of the company. Members of a mutual society, by contrast, generally have neither of those rights because, in mutuals, profits are generally not used as a mechanism for rewarding capital and members of a mutual do not have any expectation of or entitlement to a share in the increased value of the society.
As members of a mutual are not entitled to any share of its increased value, the amount by which the net asset value of a society exceeds the capital provided by members has no specific owner. It is in effect a legacy asset, held by the society for future generations, that enables it to provide for and invest in the future. It is a core part of a mutual’s identity. It represents the trading surplus accumulated by previous generations of members participating in their society’s business, in which they were always content to have no personal share. By implication, it is held for the benefit of future generations.
Seen through the lens of investor ownership, a capital surplus is a tempting asset for a windfall profit, which—if mutual members were replaced by investor shareholders —could be shared out among the shareholders. Capturing the asset is the usual incentive for demutualisation, which is when a capital surplus or legacy asset is divided up between the shareholders. When the mutual agreement between the former members, whereby they engaged with the society on the basis that they would not personally profit from its trade, is broken up, in short, any mutual purpose for a common good is replaced by a profit-driven purpose for private benefit.
The measures in place today provide only partial protection against demutualisation. There is currently no statutory mechanism for ensuring that surpluses, which previous generations never intended to be for private reward for anybody, remain committed to that wider public purpose. At present, it is not possible for an existing society, or those setting up a new society, to proscribe demutualisation. This leaves mutuals vulnerable to those aiming simply to liberate the legacy asset, share it out among those they choose and convert the business into an investor-owned company.
This has resulted in much of the UK’s building society sector being lost, and the businesses then either failing or being transferred into non-UK ownership. We all remember the names of those building societies that have long since disappeared, such as the Abbey National and the Bradford & Bingley. This has been bad for mutuality and bad for the economy, with damage being done to corporate diversity. Demutualised former building societies were mostly absorbed into the banks that failed in the banking crisis. Legislation is needed to help UK mutuals to preserve their legacy assets for the purpose for which they were intended, to maintain and encourage greater corporate diversity and to build a more resilient economy. Mutuals need to be able to incorporate appropriate measures into their constitutions with a statutory basis, either at the point of establishment or thereafter, with an appropriate level of member approval.
What does the Bill do? It disincentivises the raiding of legacy assets through legislation. Voluntary legislation will ensure that legacy assets are preserved for the purpose for which they were intended. It empowers mutual members to decide what should happen to the assets on a solvent dissolution. It would match the best legislation existing in many other countries around the world. The Bill introduces a voluntary power to enable a mutual to choose a constitutional change so that its legacy assets, the capital surplus, will be non-distributable, details precisely the destination of any capital surpluses on a solvent winding up, outlines the procedure necessary to include such provisions in a mutual’s rules and inserts a statutory provision for the relevant rules to be unalterable. It defines the capital surplus as the amount remaining after deducting a mutual’s total liabilities from its total assets, including repayment of members’ capital. It introduces new provisions to maintain the destination of the capital surplus and ensures that where mutual rules make the capital surplus non-distributable, any resolution to convert into, amalgamate with or transfer engagements to a company should also include a provision to transfer the capital surplus as provided by the rules in the event of a solvent winding up. That is quite a lot in a two-clause Bill.
In conclusion, I will address the issue of why corporate diversity matters. Diversity of ownership or types of business creates models of corresponding diversity in the forms of corporate governance, risk appetite and management incentive, structures, policies and practices, and corporate behaviours and outcomes. It also offers wider choice for consumers through enhanced competition that derives in part from the juxtaposition of different business models. For the wider market to benefit, each of the corporate models needs to enjoy the necessary critical mass defined as the degree of market share necessary to enable each model to operate successfully and thus provide real competitive pressure on the other players within the market.
Finally, I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report, which specifically refers to this Bill. Responding to the points raised, I emphasise that this is a short, skeleton Bill. It is specific in nature and seeks to deal with a real, identifiable problem. The expertise to draw up the regulations lies in the Treasury. It is a Bill which is permissive. A mutual entity is not compelled to do anything on the Bill becoming law, and any mutual entity that does not wish to adopt or use the powers does not have to. Furthermore, the regulations must be brought back to this House and the other place for consideration and affirmative resolutions must be passed. There are proper procedures in place for proper consideration, and the regulations will be considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee before any such debate takes place in this House. I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords in the debate and I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I support Second Reading of this Bill and declare my interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on his sponsorship of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, and thank the honourable Member for Preston, Sir Mark Hendrick, for steering the legislation through the other place. I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on supporting this legislation.
The co-operative movement can be traced back to the Victorian era, essentially in response to the Gradgrind version of capitalism, in contrast to the more enlightened Tory tradition of the Earl of Shaftesbury and others, who legislated to protect workers and who recognised the merit of co-operation. The social enterprise model is an important recognition of a form of business other than the simple shareholder model. Community-owned businesses are a vital part of our life, generating employment, social benefit and continuity.
Demutualisation can be a threat to the mutual sector, facilitating the break-up of a business, as we have seen in the past. The distribution of all the assets, including substantial legacy assets, contrary to the intention of those who set up that business, is not in the interests of us all. Mutuals may, of course, resist demutualisation attempts, as the recent Liverpool Victoria saga showed us in 2021, when the private US equity firm Bain Capital tried unsuccessfully to take it over. This legislation will assist in resisting demutualisation.
The legislation governing mutuals is somewhat archaic. I welcome the possibility that the Law Commission might look at the wider area of mutuals and how they may have access to capital. I hope that the Minister, in responding, can say whether there is a timescale for that and whether it is happening. The United Kingdom has a relatively small mutual sector, compared with other comparable economies such as France and certainly Italy, where it is significantly larger—particularly in Emilia-Romagna, where it is a large part of the enterprise sector.
This Bill will give co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies flexibility in assessing what fits for themselves as the best model. It enables them to adopt this form of block if they want to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has said, it is not obligatory. It will help those societies that choose to adopt the so-called asset lock. Voluntary asset locks have been adopted to good effect by some societies, often with so-called charitable assignment clauses, but this legislation will build on that and ensure that, where there is an intention on the part of the business, it can go forward with a lock that is significantly harder to unpick than some of these voluntary locks that have been adopted.
I give an unqualified welcome to what is clearly a sensible piece of legislation. I have just one additional question for the Minister. Looking at the Explanatory Notes, this is a reserved area for Wales and Scotland; that much is clear. It is not a reserved area for Northern Ireland, so what will happen in relation to Northern Ireland? We all hope, I am sure, that the devolved body, Stormont, will be up and running before long. It has been a good week in relation to Northern Ireland, with the success of the legislation going through. It has been a good week for sensible government. I hope that the Minister can say something about how the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom can benefit from this legislation in the short term while we do not have Stormont up and running.
However, I will not detain the House any longer, except to give an unqualified welcome to this legislation, and to thank the noble Lord for bringing it forward.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and Sir Mark Hendrick, on their work and their diligence in bringing to a likely success this piece of legislation. I declare a relevant interest as a member of a mutual, the Yorkshire County Cricket Club, and as someone who has provided, in the last year, some significant work and advice, including on regulatory issues, with the Financial Conduct Authority. I am currently assisting the club in looking at the raising of finances from the capital markets or elsewhere to deal with its ongoing financial crisis. According to the press statements by those at senior levels in the club, there is currently a major financial crisis, and indeed a suggestion that the club is in some peril. There is an annual general meeting tonight. Doubtless more details will be provided in relation to that.
This Bill is very timely. It raises interesting questions about how new powers could be used and how the Treasury could give guidance to allow an inventiveness in use. Take the situation with Yorkshire County Cricket Club, a mutual. The public face states “a mutual”. It is my understanding that it is a community benefit society. However, I have been unable to get absolute clarification on that. The fact that one cannot get an easy clarification on that demonstrates a weakness in the current system.
Concepts of asset lock are often seen in terms of financing. Yorkshire County Cricket Club has set up a private charity, the Yorkshire Cricket Foundation. However, assets come in different forms. The financial crisis of this mutual is primarily because it has had an investment with non-mutuals in building assets—in this case, a stand, for which lots of money is owed and for which lots of money had to be borrowed. That agreement is within the mutual and yet outside the mutual because that is not an asset that the mutual controls and therefore can asset lock. Within the stadium, there is a hotel that is rather significant in terms of income generation for test cricket. It is owned by a third party. The interrelationship with the neighbouring rugby club, in relation to car parking and other assets, is complex, but in essence it is a mixed picture.
One could argue that the community benefit requirements under law—not least the 2014 law—would have required Yorkshire County Cricket Club to take a greater interest in the 2012 report by Tom Fletcher of Leeds Met university on racism in Yorkshire cricket and racist attitudes in Yorkshire cricket. If that had been done at the time, on some of the things that Dr Fletcher was able to evidence, future problems that emerged might have been avoided. That would seem to be a definition of community benefit that was not fulfilled under the requirements of the law and by the regulation under the FCA at the time.
What the Bill can do on the ambiguity of what is a mutual will be incredibly helpful to mutual members—I am a mutual member, and it is ambiguous to me at the moment—and there are other sporting clubs where the same would be found, but the key thing, which is potentially revolutionary for sporting clubs, is thinking through where asset locks could go. Asset locks are generally seen in terms of finances and supporting profits and how they are held on to. However, asset locks can include the pitch, for example. Therefore, if the mutual members of Yorkshire County Cricket Club were to choose to identify the pitch as a community asset and lock that in, it would mean that, should the club be in such a perilous state that it goes into liquidation and has the threat of a takeover by third parties who, in order to survive, may not wish to retain mutual status in the future, it would give this opportunity to the mutual members and empower them. For example, in a very different way, not by mutual but by private ownership, the private pitch owners at Chelsea Football Club locked in the pitch at Stamford Bridge, and not even Mr Abramovich could assuage them with financial offers to give up that ownership.
Given the Government’s intention to regulate football and, doubtless, a desire to have good management, ethics and systems across all sport in this country, this opens up a huge opportunity. I have put this to grass-roots, low-level—non-league, to be accurate—football clubs in the past. Ownership structures could be changed so that the core assets including the name, the pitch and perhaps the youth structures could be owned on a mutual basis, but the more complex assets such as the stands, corporate facilities and spectator facilities could be owned by a separate owner and not necessarily be mutualised. That would allow people to invest in some of the profit-making potential of bars and related foods et cetera, while guaranteeing that such ownership could never take away the essence of that sporting club.
I proposed that some years ago to Worksop Town Football Club. The owner at the time did not accept the concept, but the obvious way of managing sport in this country remains for a football club of that level and size, or in whatever sport: locking in the assets to a particular location; locking in the key thing in the asset, which is the pitch; and debarring. They certainly had a case at Worksop Town where one owner debarred local youth and schools from using the facility. Giving members the ability to determine who will use the core sporting facility is a semi-veto power of management, but not one that would put off any coherent private investor—who might want some kind of venture that they have built, such as a private sports club as part of a new spectator stand that he or she and their entity have profited from but, in reality, cross-subsided the creation of a stand for spectators, which then cross-subsidised the sporting body itself and the mutual.
It seems to me that, at many levels of football and cricket and, I dare say, one or two other spectator sports with similar complexities of finance, this anchors in the community benefit. The beauty and criticality of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is that it allows this to happen under any form of mutual. It is a game-changer in how, at that level—which is the level of most sport in this country—assets could be seen, and in how the supporter base and community could ensure that they have a lock on those assets.
I urge support for the Bill and urge the Treasury to move rapidly in ensuring effective guidance. This could revolutionise the grass-roots asset base in our sport and may well be of future assistance to troubled entities such as the mutual that Yorkshire County Cricket Club is at the moment.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and congratulate all those who have been involved in its passage thus far. Mutuals have been part of my political life ever since I got involved in politics: I am member of the Co-op and bank with the Co-op, the NFU looks after my woodlands, and I remain actively involved in other aspects.
I had the privilege of being chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society from 1998 to 2005, along with a man called David White. He and I created the brand of the Children’s Mutual, which was, in my judgment, the most successful unit to sell child trust funds. I am saddened that that very successful concept was replaced by the junior ISA, which did not have the same vision and excitement for young people. That is part of the history, really. I am currently one of the vice-chairmen of the All-Party Group for Mutuals.
I look particularly at Canada, where I have a brother, and at the huge success of the mutual movement there: it is growing, dominating the insurance market there, with a real mutuality of work on the ground. In a lesser sense, one sees the same in Holland and in Europe. I would like to see that happen in my country.
In today’s world, the mutual movement faces two challenges. One is how to utilise retained capital, which is addressed in the Bill, and the other is raising capital. The latter element took me into the legislative process in 2015, when I took a Bill through both Houses with the support of my noble friend on the other Bench—he is now not on the Front Bench, but nevertheless he has been hugely supportive, and I underwrite his involvement in the mutual movement.
I previously had a Bill called the Mutuals’ Redeemable and Deferred Shares Bill. That was to address the issue of raising capital. At that time, you had a situation where, of the five elements that make up the mutual world, building societies, credit unions and co-operatives had already been helped by the Chancellor at that time, but two had not: the mutual insurance companies and the friendly societies. My worry and theirs was that, if we did not do something, they would wither on the vine. Indeed, when one looks back, it was not so many years ago that the mutual insurers had about half the market; today, it is 10%, and I suspect that that is a little generous.
At any rate, that Bill was supported by Her Majesty’s Government, and I still pay tribute to the then Chancellor, Sajid Javid, who helped in taking the Bill through Parliament. We hit certain problems, particularly to do with the requirements of Solvency II and whether the capital raised would be eligible for tier 1 capital, which was absolutely vital for development capital. However, after much negotiating, we got to a situation where we had to remove one element, the redeemable element, because, basically, an election was coming.
When we got that on the statute book, we thought we had got a long way and that it was all going to happen smoothly. Lo and behold, it never happened, because it required a statutory instrument to implement the Act, and that was not made due to concerns at the time that issuing these shares would alter the tax liability of mutuals. So the Bill is still there as an Act. It is still sitting there and I hope something will happen about it, but I will come back to that in a second.
I now turn to the current bill. It is not a huge Bill; it is very much a focused Bill, and that is to its great credit. I praise Sir Mark Hendrick and others who have taken it thus far. The interesting part of what has been happening in the team that has been working on it is the letter—I cannot see the date on it—from Minister Andrew Griffith MP to Gareth Thomas MP, who is chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Mutuals. The last paragraph is absolutely key. It says:
“Going forward, the Government aims to develop a modern and supportive business environment to set mutuals up for future growth and success and is currently exploring the options for reviews of key legislation underpinning the sector. This will allow the appropriate time and space for engagement with mutuals and regulators to ensure there is consensus on the best way forward.”
That is a very exciting prospect.
I see my noble friend on the Front Bench. It has been a privilege to work with her on the Bill we are doing in the House at the moment on financial matters.
We also have a practical problem. I think every one of us has probably shopped at John Lewis. It is interesting that the chairman, Dame Sharon White, was deeply involved in the early stages of the child trust fund, so she must feel quite strongly that somehow she needs to find a means of recapitalising John Lewis. That is another challenge. Speaking personally, I think John Lewis is part of life in the United Kingdom, and I would like to see that organisation prosper. I think that should basically be at the back of His Majesty’s Government’s review of this whole area.
I read economics at Cambridge—I found a subject I was reasonably good at, having not been terribly academic at school. I was reminded, as it was quoted in the papers recently, that John Stuart Mill hoped that employee ownership would end the standing feud between capital and labour. That is the driving element that I feel as well. I will give this Bill all possible support and do anything I can to help it move forward, and anything I can to help His Majesty’s Government as they look at the broader aspect mentioned in the letter I quoted. I just remind my friend the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that when he supported my Bill he said it was the second time. This time it will be third time lucky, I hope. With that, I offer myself as a servant to do anything I can to put this Bill on the statute book.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, it is somewhat unusual to stand up from these Benches and agree with virtually every word that has come from the Benches opposite, but that is where I find myself today. I join Members on all sides of the House in congratulating my noble friend Lord Kennedy on sponsoring this Bill, and indeed my honourable friend Sir Mark Hendrick, with whom I served in the Commons, who introduced it. It is good to see that it has had an unqualified welcome from all sides of the House.
It is, as my noble friend pointed out and has been mentioned just recently, a very straightforward Bill. Although there are regulations to be made, I do not, on this occasion, have my usual concerns about a skeleton Bill leaving the detail to later—though of course many people will want to look at that detail quite carefully.
I think that many people in the co-operative movement, and many people who deal with mutuals, would have been surprised, until quite recently, that such legislation is necessary. There have been shocks to the system—mention was made of Liverpool Victoria—that have made people look again at the framework of regulation here. Although this Bill is welcome, it is not the last word on what needs to happen going forward.
The issuing of a statutory asset lock is clearly extremely important, and that need has been highlighted by recent cases. Those who established mutuals and co-operative institutions never thought that the assets that they were creating were not protected. I think that is where the shock element comes from.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, gave a bit of the history of co-operatives, and I appreciate that because, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy indicated earlier, many of us were brought up in that particular culture of co-operation. Like many people, I remember going as a child to the local Co-op in Wishaw, where my granny lived, for the morning rolls. I remember to this day, “four, five, seven, six” which was the number you had to give to make sure that, at the appropriate time, the dividend came forward. In Bolton, we had a remarkable system where, when you went to the Co-op shop, you were given a thin paper ribbon with the amount spent that you then had to put on a gummed piece of paper. If I lost it on the way home, my mother was not best pleased, because that again was reflected in the dividend that was often very useful for buying shoes or whatever it was that was the particular purchase of that kind.
It was not just the financial incentive to shop at the Co-op or to have insurance with the Co-op; it was the feeling that you were not being cheated. There was a confidence factor there. The early co-operative organisations were often based on giving people confidence that they were not being cheated but also on a feeling of belonging. It was part of the culture of many working class existences. I think that the co-operation with social enterprises, which was mentioned on the Benches opposite, is something that builds on that. Those who established co-operative and mutual benefit societies and institutions would be horrified at the thought that the assets that have been built up over time could go for other purposes.
I have just one question for the Minister, and it builds on what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said. In the Commons, the Minister said that the Government would soon bring forward legislation to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 and are consulting on reviewing the legislative framework governing co-operatives, community ventures and friendly societies. I know Ministers cannot anticipate what might be in the King’s Speech, but I wonder whether we could have a bit of an update on the progress that I hope is being made in this particular area.
Mention has been made of sport, and I think it is important. I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy is a great football fan, although we disagree on which club we should be supporting. He will have seen the real difficulties that many clubs have gone through in recent years. We have one or two football clubs that are going down this particular pattern of trying to work together and have a community asset. I hope there is more scope there.
This is an important Bill. It is a small Bill. It is, as my noble friend said, a permissive Bill. It is not ensuring that all societies go down this route, but I hope that the voluntary powers in it will be acted upon, because that is what the originators of all these institutions would have wished.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, as a proud member of the Co-operative Party, it is a genuine pleasure to contribute to this debate. I pay tribute, as so many have, to my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark for introducing this incredibly important Bill and for continuing the work started in the other place by Sir Mark Hendrick.
I do not believe that anyone who has listened to my noble friend during this debate or at any other point could doubt his commitment to the co-operative movement. He is a stalwart co-operator and has dedicated many hours to campaigning for the co-operative movement, seeking to ensure a fairer and more equitable approach to our local economy.
As my noble friend outlined, co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies are not relics of the past but a fundamental aspect of our national economy, and provide a lifeline to communities seeking to be directly involved in the provision of services in their immediate vicinity. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton reminded us, for many of us nothing is more evocative of childhood than conversations about our family’s divi number. My partner can still cite his grandmother’s: 207619, Thelma Snell. But co-operatives and mutuals are more than retail outlets, important as those are.
As my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, both referenced, the British co-operative movement is as diverse as our economy and includes everything from cricket clubs to football pitches—that was news to me—and from housing providers to funeral societies, credit unions, insurance companies, shared community spaces, retail offers and even the odd public house.
That is why this legislation is so important. In the UK, 14 million of us are members of a co-operative or mutual. They employ more than 250,000 people and generate a combined turnover of £39.7 billion a year. They also collectively hold more than £200 billion in assets, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, highlighted. While those numbers may seem impressive, they are small fry compared to those of our friends in the EU. The co-operative sector in Germany is four times the size of the UK’s and is a sector of its economy embraced at both a federal and a local level.
Around the world, 12% of the population are members of a co-op and the largest 300 co-operatives and mutuals report an annual turnover of $2.1 trillion. From that comes a view of how capital can be used not for short-term gain but for long-term investment in which members understand that the success of the business and surpluses generated above the original capital asset are used for the common good. This business model also creates a stable and dynamic enterprise; co-operatives are twice as likely to survive their first five years of trading than other start-ups and are known to be much more ambitious in their plans for growth.
It is therefore imperative that we do what we can not only to foster the creation of new co-operative and mutual societies but to protect the ones we have, which is why the Labour Party has already pledged to double the size of the British co-operative sector after the next general election.
This Government speak a great deal about economic growth and levelling up. The co-operative movement is a vehicle that can and should be involved in delivering both, and this piece of legislation is a small step in helping the sector to move forward. It provides the safety mechanism that allows for any capital surplus to be held over and for the associated funds and assets to remain committed to the wider public good should a mutual cease to trade. It empowers the members of mutual societies to decide what should happen to assets upon the dissolution of their society. It will allow members the right to preserve the assets for the future, to deliver the original guiding intentions upon which their society may have been founded.
Currently, no such provision exists in the UK. Nothing exists that allows members to specifically confirm that any capital surplus would be non-distributable and remove the very tantalising incentive for demutualisation. Those pioneers who set up and found co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies never do so in the hope of turning a quick profit. They do so because of a desire to enhance the common good, which can be achieved only by co-operation. They seek not only to build a financial enterprise but to provide a community with a tangible solution to a shared need. Indeed, these co-operators have neither the right nor the expectation of securing personal financial benefit from the increased value of their society; this is where the problems arise.
This Bill, therefore, establishes the right from day one, if they wish, for new mutuals, co-ops and friendly societies to enshrine in their governing documents that any capital surplus in the event of dissolution will be held securely in the hope that future generations may, one day, pick up where they left off. It would stop eagle-eyed investors seeking to demutualise, distribute an unearned windfall profit and for ever end the common good that the founding members had intended from their original stake.
This Bill is a bulwark to those who see successful mutuals and co-operatives as an opportunity to asset-strip and make a quick buck on the backs of generations of working people who made a choice about the type of business they wished to support, so it definitely has the support of our Benches.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, all speakers in this debate have recognised the diversity and value that mutuals bring to our economy. At their core, mutuals give people a stake in how businesses and organisations should be run. Their unique, purpose-led, member-focused approach provides an alternative model of economic organisation and activity across all industries, from financial service providers to housing, agriculture, manufacturing and—as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, noted—sports clubs, down to community assets such as locally owned libraries and pubs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, described to the House, he has a keen appreciation of the importance of mutuality as a committed member of the Co-operative Group and a non-executive director of the London Mutual Credit Union, one of the largest credit unions in London. I thank him for lending his wealth of experience and expertise as he leads the Bill through this House on behalf of the honourable Member for Preston, to whom plaudits must go for the Bill before us today.
I also take a moment to acknowledge the spirit of cross-party collaboration of which this Bill is a product, particularly that which was fostered between the honourable Member for Preston and my honourable friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and his predecessor, the honourable Member for North East Bedfordshire, which saw the Bill move unopposed through all its stages in the House of Commons. Throughout, their endeavours have been backed by significant levels of support and input from the sector itself, particularly the trade bodies Co-operatives UK and the Association of Financial Mutuals, and the think tank Mutuo.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, clearly explained the positive change this Bill seeks to deliver for co-operatives, friendly societies and mutual insurers. This country is rightly recognised as the birthplace of the modern mutual movement. It is right that we protect this legacy by equipping co-operatives, friendly societies and mutual insurers with a stronger option in law to safeguard their funds for the future so that they can continue to contribute value to society and their members for years to come. The merits of the Bill are clear and roundly endorsed by the sector itself. I am pleased to be able to give the Government’s full backing to it. Within the limited legislative time available to us, I look forward to the Bill progressing swiftly.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked how the provisions in this Bill can be taken forward in Northern Ireland given that co-operatives legislation is devolved and there is no Executive in place. Northern Ireland is governed best when governed locally. The Government believe that this is the moment for the restoration of the devolved institutions. It would be for a restored Executive to take forward any similar legislation, but I assure my noble friend that my officials have had regular dialogue on mutuals issues with their counterparts in Northern Ireland and would be happy to continue that engagement in future.
As noble Lords have noted, the Government’s commitment to this sector is not limited to this Bill. Through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, a number of important amendments are being made to the Credit Unions Act 1979 to support the future growth, diversification and development of credit unions. These reforms include empowering credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services, creating a more agile and competitive sector, which can better adapt to changing market trends to deliver for its members.
Furthermore, the Government are delivering for building societies—mutual savings providers and mortgage lenders—which are not included in the scope of this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, noted, and as announced in the Edinburgh reforms package, the Government will in due course bring forward legislation to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 following the conclusion of our consultation. The amendments will help to establish a legislative framework that is fit for the future and promote a level playing field for building societies to grow and compete.
The Bill is focused on safeguarding the positions that mutuals hold today, but we must also focus on the future. To respond to my noble friend Lord Bourne, my noble friend Lord Naseby—to whom I pay tribute for his long record of support for mutuals—and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, I say that we are in active discussions with the Law Commission on options to proceed with reviews of both the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and the Friendly Societies Act 1992, with a view to launching those reviews in the next financial year. As my noble friend Lord Naseby noted, modernised, fit-for-purpose legal frameworks will enable friendly societies and co-operatives to seize opportunity and grow.
All in this House appreciate the potential of modern mutuality. Mutuals are invested in the success of their members and the local authorities where they operate. Because of that, they can be a real asset in our mission to level up and spread economic opportunity across every region of this country. In the meantime, I look forward to working with noble Lords to ensure the successful passage of the Bill, which is one important step along the road to reform for the mutual sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I very much thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I agree with every comment that has been made, which is very unusual in this House, so that is wonderful.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for the reference that he made to the campaign against the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria. That is a recent example of the threat that mutuals face when people see their large assets. It was a great campaign that will be an eye-opener and a wake-up call for everyone, showing that something needs to be done to protect those assets. I thank him for his support, and I generally agree with all the comments that he made.
My noble friend Lord Mann spoke about sports facilities, the benefits they bring to the community and how the assets of those facilities could benefit from a change in their ownership structures. That was a really important point. He highlighted that, with legislation, lots of playing fields and sports centres and grounds could be protected for future generations. Small ones in particular are often under threat.
As my friend the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, we have worked together many times on these sorts of issues, and I thank him again for his support, which is really good to hear. His many years of support for the mutual sector are welcome and needed, and we thank him very much for them.
My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton also made reference to the Liverpool Victoria situation and highlighted the need for further protection. I agree with what she said about the special place that the Co-op has, in our memories and even today; I am a regular shopper down the Co-op, and it is a wonderful organisation, as are all the mutual organisations in our country, so it is always worth supporting that.
It was great to see the support from the Opposition for the Bill. My noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and I have been friends for many years, from long before either of us was in either House of Parliament. She used to serve in the other place. I was so pleased when she joined this House at the end of last year, and I am even more pleased and proud that she is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. It is great to see her here.
I thank the Minister for her support for the Bill today, and I thank the officials from the Treasury for all the work that they have done. It is good to hear that there is further work going on behind the scenes in the department to look at other legislation. I was pleased that she mentioned the London Mutual Credit Union. I am proud to be a director there. It is a wonderful institution, the biggest credit union in London, and we are actually in the mortgage market now. It is a fantastic organisation. If she ever wants to visit, I would be delighted to show her around and show her all the work that we do there.
Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 View all Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2022 - (7 Sep 2022)
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to sponsor the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I thank Stuart McDonald MP for steering the Bill so effectively through the other place. It has already achieved a minor miracle in uniting the Scottish National Party and the Conservative Party, as well as gaining cross-party support in the other place. I pay tribute to all those who have spoken so passionately and sensitively about their personal experiences of children born prematurely, including Luke Hall MP and David Linden MP. I give thanks to the APPG on Premature and Sick Babies.
I am enormously grateful to Bliss and other charities that provide vital support to parents of premature and sick babies in their time of need, and which have provided me with advice on the Bill. I want in particular to mention Tom and Anna, who are now both employees of Bliss, who came to see me and told me their personal stories and how they had been inspired to work to help other parents. It is not always easy to talk about these painful experiences, but I want to be clear that all who have campaigned for the Bill can take pride in seeing it come to fruition.
I am grateful to everyone who has put their name down to speak today, and to see such wide-ranging expertise from across the House. I know that this is a far-reaching, highly important and deeply personal issue for many here today, and I am sure we will have a very thoughtful debate.
The Office for National Statistics reports that an estimated 100,000 babies every year are admitted to neonatal care in the UK following their birth. Neonatal care is the type of medical or palliative care that a baby who was born prematurely or sick receives. Many of these babies spend prolonged periods of time on a neonatal care unit in a hospital as a result of being born prematurely or with other health conditions.
We know how incredibly worrying and stressful a time that is for parents. They of course want to get on and focus their attention on getting through this period, supporting their family, each other and their baby or babies. Unfortunately, though, some may end up with concerns about their ability to do so and to keep their jobs. Fathers, if eligible, get only two weeks of statutory paternity leave, and when that runs out they might be called back to work while their baby is still in hospital. For babies who have an extended stay to stay in hospital at the start of their lives, mothers report that the 39 weeks of paid maternity leave does not give them enough time. A large portion of that can be used up while their baby is in neonatal care, leaving them feeling that they do not have enough time at home with their baby before having to go back to work. It is important always to have at the front of our minds that children in neonatal care often have significant health or developmental issues that require specialist medical attention, which means that this does not end up being a usual form of maternity leave. I have heard at first hand that some parents even choose to leave work as a result.
The successful passage of the Bill will realise an important commitment from the Government to create a new statutory leave and pay entitlement for the parents of babies receiving neonatal care. That means that employed parents who find themselves in this desperate situation in future will know that, as a minimum, they are entitled to time off work to care for their babies and that they will not suffer detriment from their employer as a result.
Protected time off from work for parents who find themselves in this position is crucial. We know that there are some brilliant supportive and flexible employers out there, and I commend them and encourage others to follow their lead. Business representative organisations, including the CBI, have expressed their support for the plan to introduce neonatal care leave and pay. Employee retention has been identified as a key benefit of family-related leave policies, including neonatal care leave and pay and engagement with employer representatives. This is the right thing to do for families and for the labour market.
I will outline the key components of the Bill. It consists of three clauses and a Schedule. The main provisions of the Bill are found in the Schedule, which creates a statutory entitlement to neonatal care leave, creates a statutory entitlement to neonatal care pay and makes consequential amendments to other legislation, including adding references to neonatal care leave and pay where relevant. Neonatal care leave and pay will be available to each employed parent of babies who are admitted into neonatal care up to the age of 28 days and who have a continuous stay in hospital, or in other specified care settings, of seven full days or more. Neonatal care leave will be a day-one right, meaning that it will be available to an employee from their first day in a new job.
Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to those employees who meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests. I expect it to be paid at the statutory rate, currently £156.66, or 90% of the employee’s average wages—whichever is lower. This amount is usually uprated in line with increases to statutory payments.
As the Government have already set out in their response to the consultation on neonatal leave, the intention is that the total amount of statutory neonatal care leave available to parents will be capped at a maximum of 12 weeks; that will be one week for every week their child spends in neonatal care. This will be set out in the regulations under the Bill.
This leave will be protected. Those exercising the right to leave will have legal protection against being subjected to any detriment for doing so, consistent with other family-related leave entitlements such as paternity, maternity and adoption leave. It is worth your Lordships noting that this Bill is constructed to be in harmony with these other related entitlements.
Neonatal care leave will be flexible, allowing employees to take leave either when their child is receiving neonatal care or after that period. This means that fathers who have only two weeks of paternity leave may want to take their neonatal care leave while their child is still in neonatal care. However, mothers will be able to add it to the end of their maternity leave and other forms of parental leave that they may be entitled to. This is because, once maternity leave commences, a mother cannot stop it in order to take neonatal care leave, or else she will lose her remaining maternity leave.
With that in mind, the Bill provides for the window of time within which neonatal care leave can be taken to be set out in regulations. This window will be a minimum of 68 weeks following the child’s birth, as this ensures that mothers and fathers have sufficient time to take their neonatal care leave alongside other leave rights that they may be entitled to, rather than having to lose out on any such entitlements.
Eligibility for neonatal care leave and pay will be detailed in regulations but must be based on a parental or other personal relationship with the child in neonatal care. This is to ensure that the definition can be kept up to date to accommodate changing family dynamics.
Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that there are a number of delegated powers in this Bill. We spend a lot of time, quite rightly, in this House talking about being clear about the need for delegated powers and how they will be used. The powers in this Bill mirror, in so far as is possible, the approach in existing family-related leave and pay entitlement legislation. Such powers have been on the statute book for some time and are well understood by employers and the legal community. A similar approach was taken most recently in the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which was also a Private Member’s Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report of 2 February had no concerns with the delegated powers process in the Bill. It said:
“There is nothing in this private member’s Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House.”
I hope that gives noble Lords adequate reassurance on this matter.
We have an opportunity here to make a real difference to the lives of those who seek to rely on this entitlement in the future. I hope that, with the support of your Lordships, we can deliver legislation that parents who have been through a stressful time while having a baby in neonatal care, and the charities which work tirelessly to support them, can celebrate. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this Bill and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, for introducing it to the House so brilliantly and comprehensively. It is a compassionate Bill that will help thousands of parents at a very anxious time of their lives: when their newborn baby is fighting for his or her life in a neonatal intensive care unit, is born prematurely with genetic or congenital problems, or is recovering from surgery or fighting to overcome infections. Tiny babies spend weeks or months, sometimes more than a year, connected to ventilators, feeding tubes or, in some cases, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines.
As an obstetrician, I have assisted at the birth of many such babies, well aware of their fragility, particularly of premature babies at birth, some of whom are no bigger than the palm of your hand. I recall stories of many babies who spent months in neonatal units, and I will give examples of some so that noble Lords can better understand the anxiety and stress that parents have to go through while their precious, often tiny child courageously fights for his or her life. This is a compassionate Bill not only for parents, but for these tiny babies.
One such story is that of Sarah Beattie, born 14 weeks prematurely weighing 1 pound 4 ounces—595 grams. She spent months in a neonatal intensive care unit fighting for her life. It is not difficult to imagine the stress, anxiety and pain her parents went through as Sarah was cared for in an incubator for several months in the neonatal unit. Thirty years later, it was my pleasure, as chancellor of Dundee University, to award her a degree in law.
Another story is of the parents of Peggy and Bodhi, born at 23 weeks and four days—at the margins of viability —during the pandemic, weighing 550 and 600 grams. Their parents, Alison and Jim, were told of the small chance of the twins’ survival and, if they did survive, of the risk of severe disability due to their prematurity. Alison and Jim followed a daily routine of visits to hospital, helping with the care of Peggy and Bodhi, going through anxious times and worry as the twins fought through breathing difficulties, cerebral bleeds and much more. Alison was off work for 17 months. Peggy and Bodhi are now two and a half years old, and Alison says they are perfect. She said that, as parents reflecting on their own neonatal experiences, it was tough, but nothing compared to what her babies went through.
Some parents are not so lucky, with partners having to go to work, financial worries, unsympathetic employers, the separation of parents at visiting times and much more hardship. Parents whose babies are in neonatal care for a long period are understandably worried and anxious. They often feel depressed, suffer from sleep deprivation and much more. They want to be with their baby as often and for as long as they can. They wake up at night wanting to see and be with their baby. Technological developments such as vCreate, developed at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow, are now widely available in UK neonatal units. It provides a secure personal video link, enabling parents to see their baby all the time, with regular updates on their baby’s condition—a great advance and much appreciated by parents.
So, what are the good things in the Bill? It gives much-needed additional paid time off work for parents when their baby is in neonatal care. It will particularly benefit fathers and those taking paternity leave, enabling them to be present at the neonatal unit for longer when their baby is unwell. They will also be able to support their partner through the experience, emotionally and practically, including with the childcare of older children. For many mothers, when their partner returns to work they are left alone without support to receive difficult news and make life-changing decisions. The Bill will make it possible for both parents to be involved in their baby’s care. This is essential for neonatal units hoping to deliver care in a family-integrated setting. As research has shown, this improves outcomes both for babies and their parents.
I welcome that this will be paid, despite it being only at the statutory rate, as having a baby in hospital can be expensive, and most families cannot afford for one parent to take unpaid time off work. Research by Bliss found that, on average, families report spending £405 per week over their usual budget while their baby is in neonatal care. To support families through this troubling financial time, I hope many employers will offer neonatal care leave at a higher rate of pay than the statutory minimum.
I hope the Government will be sympathetic to dealing with what is missing from the Bill. In general, parents will be entitled to neonatal care leave and pay if they are employees and already qualify for maternity, paternity and adoption leave and pay, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, mentioned. However, this means that a group of parents—those who are self-employed, who are classed as workers or who do not meet the criteria for other reasons—will not have access to this vital support. Although employment support for this group of parents is not within the scope of the Bill, I hope the Government, and particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, will look seriously at reviewing how they can provide similar support to all working parents. I hope the Minister is personally sympathetic to that view.
The other issue is the lead time for implementation, which is extraordinarily long: parents will have to wait until 2025 before the Bill will be implemented. Surely it has to be possible to do this earlier than 2025, and help thousands of parents and their babies who will be born before 2025. I hope the Bill is the start of much-needed help for parents whose children have to be cared for in neonatal care units, particularly for long periods. I give it my strongest support.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has great experience and expertise in the area of neonatal care.
We have heard from Scotland, so I thought we should hear from Northern Ireland on the Bill. I am pleased to be in the House today to support its Second Reading. I recognise that, from a territorial point of view, the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, as such matters are devolved. However, as with other Bills that have passed, I absolutely hope that it will be replicated by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, once they are functioning again. The same is true of the previous debate, in which we heard about co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies, which I was at one stage a Minister for in the Northern Ireland Executive. I listened with great interest and hope that the officials are already working with officials in Northern Ireland to make them aware of that Bill, which I hope will be replicated in due course.
Over 1,800 babies are born prematurely or sick each year in Northern Ireland and cared for in one of our seven neonatal units. Sometimes, of course, the neonatal care is planned for, because it is known that there is a difficulty in utero and it is diagnosed before the pregnancy comes to an end. In my case, when my youngest child was born, it was not planned at all.
I was about to be discharged home with my bundle of joy, all 9 pounds and 14 ounces of him, when the doctors came in to do their checks. First, the junior doctor came in, and he left without saying anything. A more senior doctor came in, and he left without saying anything, and then the consultant came in, and I knew that something was wrong. It transpired that my son had been born with a pulmonary stenosis, a congenital heart problem, and he was taken immediately to neonatal care. After just three weeks, he had surgery to deal with the issue at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, where they opened his valve. I remember, as a mother, watching him fall asleep on a huge operating-theatre table—he was just this tiny little baby boy. I want to mention his consultant, Dr Frank Casey, a wonderful paediatric cardiac consultant at the Royal Victoria Hospital. I can report to the House that my son is now a strapping 16 year-old rugby player, and absolutely doing very well.
I tell this story because having to rely on neonatal care can happen to any couple, and the Bill will allow the mother and the partner to be there to support each other and the little bundle of joy being cared for, without the additional worry about where the next pay cheque is coming from. Although my son was in neonatal care for a relatively short period, it can go on for months and years, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, indicated. That needs recognition, which is why I strongly support the Bill today.
I pay tribute to the proposer of the Bill in the other place and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, for setting out the details and importance of it. I also acknowledge the wider work going on in early years, especially that of the Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood, led by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, highlighting the need for intervention in early years. I also acknowledge the recent early years review, chaired by Dame Andrea Leadsom, who was asked to bring that forward on behalf of the Prime Minister. That work is fundamental and has been widely welcomed by the sector. I emphasise recognising the importance of early intervention in those critical first 1,001 days, which begin at conception—it is important to remember that—because intervening early is important not only to the child and the family but to our society as a whole. It is wonderful that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales is taking such an active role in her campaign to highlight this. It will really bear fruit in the future, when those little babies are adults.
I see the Bill as part of cherishing our young people from day 1, by allowing both parents to be present if there is a need for neonatal care and by taking away the worry about entitlement to leave by granting it as a day 1 right for parents whose children have spent at least one week in neonatal care. I thank the charities that have worked with the proposers of the Bill: I mention Bliss and, from a Northern Ireland perspective, TinyLife, which I have supported in the past—I know it does wonderful work with premature babies and babies who need to go into neonatal care. I strongly support the Bill.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part in the Second Reading of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill. We like long titles in this House, but we are actually speaking about precious lives who are so tiny. I stand today to support my noble friend Lady Wyld and the Members in the other place, but, more importantly, the Bill will support the many families up and down the country who are going through such horrific rollercoaster rides of emotions right now.
Life is so precious. I know that only too well—I had to make so many decisions before turning off my husband’s life-support machine, 48 hours after his brutal attack. I still have flashbacks of that beeping sound and guilt—did I do the right thing? I hear the switch clicking off, as his body fell silent.
The emotions of bringing a new life into this world when the pregnancy does not go to plan or if a baby is born at full term with complications mean that, more than ever, these families need the Bill to be enacted. The parents face so many unknown challenges that are certainly not in our parenting books. There are so many questions and decisions to be made, and having to do that on your own because of the 14-day paternity leave is so cruel. On many occasions in this Chamber, I have spoken about victims and survivors, because it is their stories that must be heard. Today, I speak up for families whose little ones are fighting to survive.
Let me introduce the House to Sam Bagnall, who I call “our little Sam”, and his doting parents, Zalena and Martin Bagnall, who are watching the debate on this stage of the Bill. Sam decided to come into their lives at a very early stage of her pregnancy: 24 weeks plus two weeks’ gestation. Mum had been on bed rest for a week, praying that she could get to the 24-week stage of viability. And he did, but that was where their lives—three lives—were placed on a hugely emotional journey of many tests, operations and making life decisions, with Sam’s tiny body fighting to survive. Can you imagine being constantly told, “We will do all our best, but you may have to say goodbye to Sam”?
Sam was born during Covid, which was hard on all families whose babies were due. However, Martin was able to be at the hospital because of furlough, which thankfully did not put a duty and helped alleviate the financial burden to some degree. It enabled him, as a father, to be by the side of his son and wife 18 hours a day. If he had been on the 14-day paternity leave, he would have had to live with the knowledge that, on day 15, Sam suffered a ruptured bowel. Three times, they were informed to say goodbye to Sam.
In our neonatal units, other mothers in the same situation become a community, so I will now speak about George. His mum had maternity leave and his dad had the 14-day paternity leave, but his work made him come back and he eventually had to go on sick leave. Another dad, who worked for a very well-known car manufacturing company, had sympathy from his bosses but was told to get back to work. His baby died without him being there; his wife and partner was alone.
Dads in particular need that extra time, especially when the baby is first born, because, sadly, that is when most of the complications are realised. The baby’s organs are so small and tiny, and there is so much pressure going around their body that their body collapses in some way. I too praise and thank Bliss for its excellent briefing, which was heartfelt to read and highlights the excellent work that is carried out across this country by many doctors and nurses. I call them “specialist angels”; what they do on a daily basis is just outstanding. Knowing that one in seven babies born in the UK is admitted to neonatal care really makes the Bill so important to ensure that we give the best to a newborn baby and their family.
I am not medical, even though I have enough ailments, but research shows that having both parents present releases oxytocin—I look to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to see whether I said that right—in the baby, as the baby recognises mum’s and dad’s voices. Mother nature is marvellous, as it also reduces pain in our babies’ bodies. Science shows that it is not just about mum and dad being there, it is also about being by each other’s side. It is so beneficial for that young life.
The Bill, which I support in all parts, will allow parents to take, I think, an additional 476 days off work at a time when it is most important. It takes away that guillotine of choosing work or spending such precious time with their little baby and supporting their partner.
Super Sam spent four and half months in hospital, and I commend Liverpool Women’s Hospital and Alder Hey for the superb support and time that they gave to Sam’s body and parents. Super Sam is now three years old. He has some disabilities, as his parents were informed may happen, to his sight, hearing, speech and mobility. But let me tell the House why we call him Super Sam. He is now learning to walk and to speak; he went to speech therapy this morning. He has some sight issues, but thanks to an invention, special glasses enable him to get around. Nothing puts Sam off, and he is now practising with a football. And he now has a little sister, Ava, who is absolutely beautiful and has turned one—and she bosses him around.
Giving this neonatal leave and pay will no doubt alleviate more anxiety and pain when someone no longer has to leave their partner’s side but can stand by their side and support them with the hands-on care that is so vital to that precious life—their baby.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, and all those who have promoted the Bill. Reading the briefing we had from Bliss made me want to say a few words on this particular measure. When the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, mentioned the two people, Tom and Anna, who were helping with Bliss, it made me think that we should note and appreciate that so many parents who have been through this trauma want to help others; it is a very important matter.
Many of us might think, “Well, why haven’t the Government done this already?”, because, when you read the kind of information we have in our briefings, you see that clearly there has been a vacuum of support and a very clear case that something needed to be done. It is good that we have been able to have people using the Private Members’ Bill procedure. In a way, this is what Private Members’ Bills are for—to bring attention to a real loophole that has existed—and I hope that the Bill can progress so that people who need this help will in fact get it. The case has been made and is clear, and we need to take this further as quickly as possible.
Those of us who have not had the experience of having a baby in neonatal care cannot fully comprehend this; we can listen to the experiences that have been brought to our attention by the two previous speakers, but I suspect that it is something that you actually have to experience to know the full impact. Whatever problems we have had individually, the idea of a child in an incubator with tubes is something that all of us would immediately be affected by. Childbirth is supposed to be—as well as potentially painful—very exhilarating and exciting; it is an important day and something that we remember all our lives. But we do have the assumption that things will go well, and, while we might have niggles at the back of our head that something could go wrong, if something does go wrong it must be absolutely devastating—the family’s plans go out of the window immediately.
If the figures in the briefings we have had are correct, we are talking about an awful lot of people who are finding life extremely difficult at a very critical time. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, just mentioned, with modern medicine, many of these babies need a great deal of care for quite a long time, and current provision for parental support is really not adequate for what we are talking about today. In this House, sometimes we have to ask ourselves: if this were us, what would we want and need? What would we want a member of our family to have, if they were placed in the same position?
The briefing we got from Bliss was extremely interesting, particularly the point that 36% of fathers of babies in neonatal care were actually signed off sick to try to provide the kind of support that was needed. That means that it is a very important issue, because the first few days, months and years of a child’s life are some of the most formative and significant in terms of forming the relationships and bonds that are so important for families going forward. The added anxiety of financial pressure is something that really needs to be taken into account.
I wanted to ask the Minister about something which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out: that some people will not fulfil the criteria that are mentioned in the Bill for getting this financial support. I know that regulations have to dovetail into each other, and that is not always the case, but there are some quite specific limitations in terms of who can be affected, and that will need to be considered further down the line.
I cannot resist the temptation to mention delegated powers. It was good to see that in the Commons the Henry VIII clause was removed, so we do not have to bring it up and complain to Ministers at this stage, which is somewhat unusual. There is also the question of timing because, again, in the Commons, the Minister estimated that perhaps in about 18 months’ time we might get round to have this provision. I think we could probably get some movement before that, if people really took this as seriously as they should.
I congratulate all those people who have been involved in this legislation. I would just say to the Minister that I hope that we can have joined-up provision. Mention has been made of maternity rights, but there may be other children in the family to think about and there are fathers as well as mothers. This is an opportunity to bring all the provisions together and make sure that we consider the impact on the family as a whole—parents and the baby in neonatal care as well as the other children in the family—because a lot of people need support in this kind of situation. But I congratulate all those involved and very strongly support the Bill.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to give my support to this Private Member’s Bill. I add my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, for all the work that has gone into preparing for this moment and for her very detailed, informative and passionate speech. I thank everyone who is taking part in what is actually quite an emotional discussion for many of us in the Chamber.
As my noble friend Lady Taylor said, I would like to thank Bliss for its dedication and for the information that it has provided us all with to inform this debate. It is true to say, as we can see when we look in Hansard, that there was a very good debate in the other place, and there are some real champions of the cause before us today. I would also like to extend my thanks to the families who have taken the time to give information and background on their own particular circumstances.
It is appropriate here today to extend our enormous thanks to the incredible staff in the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, highlighted in his moving speech. I had, fortunately, a very minor episode, whereby my latest grandchild, at the age of five weeks, had to go into hospital to be put on oxygen as a result of infection. To see at first hand the dedication of those staff, and all the other commitments that they have while caring for children, is remarkable, and we need to continue to remind ourselves of just how significant their contribution is.
To pick out some of the highlights, the issue around regulations is key, but we are hoping that the Bill will introduce two new rights: neonatal care leave and statutory neonatal care pay. Of course, both rights will require the Secretary of State to pass the necessary regulations, and we look forward to seeing, as we move forward, the details of how they might operate.
The other important element to highlight is the right to neonatal leave being a day one right available to employees. We have heard a great deal today about who would be covered and the time period. The issue of extending eligibility is one that we will need to revisit.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is here today, because Northern Ireland obviously has a slightly different situation, in that employment law is a devolved matter.
When debating these matters, we get a significant list of statistics. One in seven babies born in the UK receive some level of neonatal care just before birth and an estimated 50,000 babies in the UK spend more than one week in neonatal care after birth. But what we have heard today and need to emphasise is that each one of those cases involves a child and an extended family, and each one of those situations will have very different circumstances. What we know from the feedback from families is that the current inflexibility of the parental leave laws actually contributes to the trauma that they experience and adds to the family’s stress.
The figures speak for themselves, in that more than half of families say that their finances were affected. One in four families have had to borrow money or increase their debt because of the baby’s neonatal stay, and 80% of parents have reported that their mental health became worse after the experience. We have heard a lot about the fact that this is not just a situation that relates to mothers; it is about fathers and non-birthing parents as well.
I emphasise the points that have been made about the importance of early bonding with babies. Those first few days and weeks are so important for children’s development, going into their early years, and we must do everything we can to enable those significant relationships to thrive and develop.
I also pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, that this is also about employers, and how actually this will bring benefit to employers. I think that, if you go out and talk to employers, you find that the vast majority would like to be able to be more supportive, but there is no framework to enable them to do so. We know that the Government have consulted with business and have had a broad range of respondents, and overwhelming support, and we need to take account of that in our discussions today. We have conversations on a repeated basis, as the Minister will be well aware, on many of the issues that prevent people from going back into the workplace. All those discussions are relevant to the subject before us today.
I emphasise the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Taylor. I do not know whether I am particularly susceptible to this—one of my older sisters had a significant stretch in hospital when I was about three from a very severe case of measles. I can remember vividly the fact that my parents were not around and that my grandparents suddenly appeared from nowhere; other carers came into my life. We were very fortunate in that respect. But what has not been highlighted, which I learned from my experience working to keep the children’s heart unit open in Leeds General Infirmary, and the other fact that we have to consider, is that many of the specialist units that these children will go into are not on the family’s doorstep. They often involve significant periods of time away from home for one or both parents, and this obviously has a knock-on effect for the entire family. We have to make sure that those elements are factored in.
We know that the Government have been active over the past three or four years. They launched a series of consultations under the Good Work Plan in July 2019, responded to that consultation in March 2020 and made a number of commitments, as we have heard. That commitment was also included in the text of the 2020 Budget, published the same month, which stated:
“The government will create an entitlement to Neonatal Leave and Pay for employees whose babies spend an extended period of time in neonatal care, providing up to 12 weeks paid leave so that parents do not have to choose between returning to work and taking care of their vulnerable newborn.”
The December 2019 Queen’s Speech included mention of an employment Bill that would introduce both the neonatal leave and pay rights, alongside a range of other commitments. The employment Bill was ultimately not introduced in the 2019-21 Session and did not appear in the Queen’s Speech of 2021 or 2022.
There has been a commitment from the Government, repeated on several occasions, including in the Good Work Plan, but sadly no action flowing from that. We must acknowledge our disappointment with the delay and the subsequent need to bring these matters forward in a Private Member’s Bill. I repeat that I pay sincere tribute to all those who have initiated and supported this Bill.
We are where we are, as we say, and I am very pleased to restate that those on our Benches are supportive of this Bill and hope that we can get assurance from the Minister about the speed with which he can act on behalf of the Government—indeed, to help the Government —to move forward and bring some relief to all those families who clearly deserve our support and help.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Wyld for bringing this important Bill forward for debate today. It is a great personal honour to be here to confirm the Government’s ongoing support for the Bill. The cross-party support for this initiative is significant; almost all parties represented in Parliament have supported this legislation specifically. I also thank Stuart McDonald for initiating the process that led to us being able to be here at this moment debating such an important topic. I am sure that we can agree that enabling parents to be with their babies when they are at their most vulnerable is clearly the right thing to do. I will address some of the comments made by noble Lords today in a moment.
Importantly, the Conservative Party manifesto in 2019 committed to introducing neonatal care leave and pay, stating that:
“We will legislate to allow parents to take extended leave for neonatal care, to support those new mothers and fathers who need it during the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives.”
I am aware of discussions around larger pieces of legislation but, in my view, having had the privilege of taking through other similar Private Members’ Bills over the last few weeks, it is important that we do these right things and do not lose sight of the importance of these specific Bills in making people’s lives better and giving people protections. That is my priority today and I am grateful for noble Lords’ support, and the support of the body politic in general, for this Bill.
If it is helpful, I will go through some of the comments made by Members of this House in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a number of very relevant points, particularly outlining his expertise. I join him, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Blake, and other Members who did not necessarily articulate it, in expressing my admiration for our doctors and nurses who care for our young babies when they come into this world, exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his expertise and contribution to this area over his lifetime.
The noble Lord and others mentioned the time for implementation. If I may say, I too share a slight degree of frustration at the expectation of an 18-month wait between Royal Assent and implementation. I have investigated this myself, as noble Lords would expect, and I am afraid that there are legitimate reasons relating to the systems and processes—two words that really should not go hand in hand with such an important and emotive topic. They relate to the practicalities of implementing these measures and ensuring that HMRC has the right systems in place. A number of pieces of secondary legislation must also be enacted, which simply takes time. All I can commit to from this Dispatch Box is my personal commitment—I am sure that I also speak on behalf of my Secretary of State and other Ministers—to ensuring that this will be enacted as speedily as possible. We will not let the processes of government delay us except to the absolute minimum. We are targeting April 2025 and we will certainly make sure that, if we can enact any parts of this legislation sooner than that, we will do so.
It was quite right that the eligibility of other types of worker in our workforce was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Taylor. It is felt that we want this to focus on employed workers. It is right to make sure that this mirrors our current maternity and other leave entitlements so that it can be effectively integrated into HMRC systems, pay systems and how businesses function.
I am perfectly aware of, and will take back to the department, the need to continually find ways to ensure that parents in this situation are able, with security, to spend time with their children. There are two very important reasons. First, it is a direct benefit to the health of the child. I would like to raise further in this debate the profile of the charity Bliss and to follow on from the comments about the parents who contributed to this work. This is a deeply personal, emotional and powerful subject. To share those experiences and to broadcast and propagate the importance of this mission is very meaningful. I congratulate them for this and hope to have the opportunity at a later date to do so in person. I hope that they are watching this debate and feel a sense of satisfaction that we continue to progress towards a suitable conclusion. My first point, then, is that it is absolutely right for the health of the child that parents are able to care for them in this difficult and essential period. It is also absolutely right, by the way, for the health of the parents.
My second point is that we must realise that there is a cost to businesses for these important social goods. We should not just ignore that fact. We as a society come together to decide how we want to structure ourselves, and how businesses respond to our needs and to important matters such as this is to be recognised—and I do recognise that. On the effectiveness of business, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the need to make sure that people remain in the workforce, having a structure and framework for how neonatal care leave is taken is far more helpful than the current system, which relies, in effect, on the charity of businesses. Many are extremely forward-footed, very generous and very compassionate but, clearly, they do not have a framework in which to operate effectively.
It is therefore extremely useful to have clear rules, such as we are bringing to bear in other areas such as carers’ leave and so on, so that employees and businesses know how to interact with each other, what their rights are and what the expectations are. As a result of that, I think that we will have far more effective functioning of businesses. We can see from the studies and some of the statistics raised today by my noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the number of fathers who are simply taking sick leave or just not going to work. It is not as if , therefore, by not having these frameworks in place, we will somehow have more people in work and that the business situation will be solved. What is happening now is the worst of all worlds: a great degree of insecurity, a huge degree of uncertainty for business and poor outcomes for parents and children. The Bill will solve a number of very important issues. It is absolutely right in every respect and will be an important element of the framework for how we want to make our economy function.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned that the delegated powers have been taken out of the Bill, so I do not need to cover that in my speech, if noble Lords do not mind. I was very touched and moved by the personal stories of my noble friend Lady Newlove about the Bagnall family—I am very pleased that super Sam is thriving—and by the stories and important personal experiences related to us by the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster, Lady Taylor and Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Wyld. I am very grateful to them for contributing to this debate in such a powerful way.
To conclude, these measures will provide valuable support and protection for parents during some of the most stressful days of their lives, when their children are in neonatal care. The Government are pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill and to deliver our manifesto commitment. Supporting the Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a fairer, high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. It is good to see that there is such fabulous support from across the political spectrum in the House for this important measure, as is clear from today’s debate. I very much look forward to continuing to work with my noble friend Lady Wyld as the Bill progresses through the House.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to everybody who spoke today, and I shall take a few moments to reflect on some of the points that were made.
When I saw the speakers’ list and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I knew we would have a very moving debate. I said to him in the tearoom, “Try not to make it too moving because I will have to get up and respond to you without becoming wobbly”. He told stories and shared the memories that he has of all the people he has looked after, including Sarah and the other mothers and babies; they will remember him for the rest of their lives, and I pay tribute to him. I share his points about implementation; others have echoed those, so I will come back to that.
All I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and her 9 pounds and 14 ounces son, is that she is a stronger woman than I am, and I am so grateful that she spoke. I very much hope that this will be mirrored in Northern Ireland. She made very powerful points, as others did, about the importance of early years and the other work that is going on in this area, and for this legislation to be part of a wider picture.
My noble friend Lady Newlove always speaks with such passion in every debate she comes to. I thank her for bringing the real-life experience and bringing to life what people go through. As my noble friend the Minister said, thank goodness for super Sam, and I pay tribute to him. More widely, she said Sam is having language and speech therapy today. That underlines the point made by others that this is holistic; it is about children as they go through their early years. We spend a lot of time in this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said this—talking about when things go wrong later, such as family breakdown, mental health problems and young people offending. But the building blocks are there. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the Princess of Wales has shown great leadership on this—long may it continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, talked about our attitude towards fathers. When we hear about skin-to-skin contact, the support for mothers, and the loneliness mothers face when they are in this situation and the impact on their mental health, I think we have a way to go in changing our attitudes towards fathers and what we expect to provide for them in these most crucial days.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, this was an emotional discussion, and I thank her very much for her support. I agree with her that there is more work to be done behind the scenes and I commit myself to doing that. I should have thanked those in the Bill team in my opening speech, who have been absolutely brilliant. Again, I thank my noble friend the Minister. I will push him on implementation and other issues, but I am sure he can cope. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Shark Fins Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Shark Fins Act 2023 View all Shark Fins Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2022 - (16 Nov 2022)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill. I begin by paying tribute to the honourable Christina Rees, who so expertly steered it through its Commons stages. As she has now passed the baton on to me, I hope I can complete the job with at least half the passion and determination that she has shown so far. I also pay tribute to the many marine and shark conservation groups that have campaigned so effectively to highlight the need for this legislation, in particular, the Shark Trust, Bite-Back and Shark Guardian. I thank the Minister in the Commons for ensuring that the Bill had a fair wind. I hope this commitment from the Government will continue here through our various stages of consideration.
This is fairly simple but important legislation that tackles acts of needless cruelty and species decline in the marine sector. Anyone who has seen footage of sharks being caught, having their fins sliced off and then being thrown back into the sea to have a slow and lingering death will have been shocked at the callousness and waste involved. It is estimated that only 2% to 5% of the shark is ever used in this practice. All this is being done to supply the supposed delicacy that shark-fins represent in parts of the food sector. This is a huge global trade: 1 million tonnes to 2 million tonnes of shark-fins are traded every year and it is estimated that 73 million sharks are killed each year to supply these fins. This is not only cruel but it upsets the vital marine ecosystems in which sharks play an important part as a keystone species. This practice exacerbates the loss of the species through fishing and marine degradation. Already, one-quarter of the 500 or so shark species are on the vulnerable or critically endangered list.
I am pleased to say that the practice of shark finning was rightly banned in UK waters in 2003, and that relatively few establishments in the UK continue to serve shark-fin on their menu. Those that do will need to import the fins. It is this import and export of fins that the Bill seeks to address, because it is a global trade. Britain still facilitates the trading of fins around the world, and thereby helps to maintain the cruel and unnecessary practice. The Bill will ban the import and export of shark-fins, or items containing shark-fins, into or from the UK. This will apply only to fins that have been removed from the body of the shark; it does not impact on the consumption of shark meat as a whole, or fins that are still attached to the carcass. The Bill also includes the provision of exemption certificates, underpinned by strict application processes, to enable conservation and educational activities to continue.
The Bill has broad public support. Defra ran a call for evidence to better understand the shark-fin trade and its impact in both the UK and overseas. Most respondents emphasised their strong opposition to shark finning and the need for additional measures to address threats to sharks. The Government’s impact assessment shows there to be a minimal impact on business, the main impact being a loss of income to fishers who export shark-fin products. However, it was also recognised that those who trade in shark-fin products do not depend on this income, so their jobs and livelihoods are unlikely to be significantly affected. We can proceed with the Bill in the knowledge that there will be very few disadvantages.
At its heart, the Bill will address the current loopholes that allow shark-fins to be sold and consumed in the UK. More importantly, it sends a message to our global trading partners that this practice is unacceptable. It will establish the UK as a global leader in the conservation of sharks and, I hope, set an example that other countries will follow. While the main market for fins is in Asia, a number of European countries, such as France, Italy and Spain, are significant players in supplying this market. By passing the Bill we would hope to be able to persuade these countries to follow suit.
I hope noble Lords will feel able to support the Bill, which provides greater conservation for sharks at home and provides leadership in protecting those endangered marine species across the globe. I beg to move.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I am very grateful to her for introducing this Bill in such a measured and comprehensive way. She is quite right: it is about leadership. I do not think that the importation of shark-fins is a huge issue in this country numerically. It has been a while since the “maw and gulf” of the “ravin’d salt-sea shark” was regularly used in Scottish witches’ brews, and it is not a massive issue by tonnage. However, there is a question of moral leadership and example. We think of ourselves as a small island, but we are, in fact, at the heart of a huge archipelago of overseas territories. Looking at the waters controlled by those territories when put together in the Caribbean, the south Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, it is an area about the size of India. So, if anything, we are a maritime nation and an aquatic state. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to show a commensurate sense of responsibility when it comes to the stewardship of marine life.
I will make one point. We are enabled to pass Bills of this kind because we now have our own trade policy. I know it is a point that is unpopular in this Chamber, but it is worth saying that. As happened when we unilaterally lifted all our tariffs and restrictions on Ukrainian exports, this is an opportunity for us to show leadership in the hope that our friends and allies in the European Union will follow. I am conscious of speaking between our two excellent noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who are two outstanding contributors to your Lordships’ counsels—Jones the Strike and Jones the Green, as it were. I hope my dear friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—who is a proper 30-year standing friend, and whose homemade jam is a delight to my children—will take the opportunity to acknowledge that this is something we are able to do because we are now a fully sovereign country, which is something that happens so rarely. It is precisely issues of this kind that ought to be determined through our national mechanisms and procedures.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is always fascinating to follow my noble friend Lord Hannan; as he said, we have been friends for 30 years since we met on the slopes of Mount Sinai. Of course, he had to bring Brexit into it: a failed project—so sad—even though I supported it.
When I first saw this Bill on our Order Paper, I got quite excited because I am constantly fighting the forces of growth and blindness to our climate crisis. I thought, “What a really good Bill”, because this is clearly something that no one can argue against. Then I found that no one is arguing against it. In fact, even the Government support it. What is the point, really, in my saying anything? But I will say something anyway because, for me, the whole issue of shark-fins encapsulates the human problem that we have in our relationship to our planet. There is an attitude among a vast majority of people—particularly in this House—that the planet is there for us: it is there for us to rape and pillage, to use as and when we need. As a Green, I can see that simply is not true. The majority of people think that this whole world is at our disposal—animal, vegetable, mineral—and I argue that it is our lifeline. It is our home, and we ought to be looking after it better. Humans have been around, more or less in the form that we are at the moment, for about 100,000 years. In evolutionary terms, that is like being tiny little toddlers, and our behaviour is often like toddlers; we are greedy, we grab and we do not follow common sense. We certainly do not seem to understand that earth is our support system.
Listening to the debate on the Budget last week was profoundly upsetting. There was a constant mantra that growth is good, growth is prosperity and growth is well-being. There was no understanding that you cannot carry on with growth when you have a finite planet: our resources will run out. Why should we—in a very advanced country—grab more than our share? After that debate, I also thought that it is ridiculous, and I cannot keep banging on about climate change when nobody is listening. I then saw that they were serving octopus in the restaurant and thought, “There is something I can do: I can stop them serving octopus”. They are an incredibly intelligent species and not necessarily something we need to eat. Even that is proving very difficult. There is also the possibility that we eat shark, which is a fish that often has other terms, like flake or white fish.
This Bill is clearly a brilliant Bill which is going to pass. I am slightly concerned that there is still a small gap about shark-fins that can come in if they are sustainably sourced. That is a slight problem because how are we going to know they are truly sustainable? In the meantime, it is an excellent Bill and I support it 100%.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we support this Bill. We thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for bringing it to this House and so clearly articulating it before us today. We were reminded this week that sharks are not just over there, in our overseas territories; we had a small-tooth sand tiger shark found on our beaches in Hampshire. They are here as well as overseas, so this is an important initiative. Personally, I am very grateful because I have a 19 year-old who has been obsessed with sharks since she was three. It is great to have something to speak about in this House where I know the people in my home will actually be interested in what I have said.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we know that one of the major threats to sharks—which are top predators—is commercial overfishing. I was very surprised to see the figures provided by the House’s Library. I was shocked that 100 million sharks were commercially fished in 2010—that is a huge number. The figures are, however, almost out of date so we estimate them. There seems to be a really big lack of data on our marine environments. The Government have invested some more money in data collecting in terms of our species on land, but there is still a lot more work to do in understanding and therefore being able to better protect our marine species in the future.
I think the issue most people have with this Bill and why it is so welcome is the cruelty. Yes, there is the ecological waste, but the cruelty of taking a fin from a shark and leaving it in the sea to die by suffocation, blood loss or predation is something I think all of us find completely abhorrent. It is right, therefore, that it should be banned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, this has been banned in our country for nearly 20 years. That was obviously during the time when we were members of the EU, and I will come back to that point in a moment. It will make a negligible effect in terms of how many animals are affected, given the imports are very small. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, rightly said, it is important that we take the role of global leadership we have very seriously.
There are two instances where the Government can strongly take this forward on the back of this Bill. First, in November last year at the CITES—the convention on the trade in endangered species—a number of new species, including commercial species, were added to the list. By us now having this “fins naturally attached” as standard, we can assist in the propagation of the CITES convention, show our global leadership and encourage other countries to take that forward. It is an important step for us to show our leadership and our commitment to the international obligations that we have in this space. Secondly, we have the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals COP in Uzbekistan in October. Again, by having this Bill on the statute book by that time, it is a proper opportunity for the Government to signal our international leadership in this space. It is excellent timing for us to have this on the statute book in advance of the CMS in October.
I will not make too many points, but I want to pick up on the point that we can legislate on this because we are out of the European Union. Yes, we can—but, as I said, this is going to have a minor impact, and the bigger issue of stopping fishing in our own waters was dealt with when we were members of the European Union. I say gently that this is a Private Member’s Bill. I think we have had five Private Members’ Bills on animal welfare issues in the last two years, yet we are still waiting for anything from the Government on live transport. They could act on this, as we are now no longer in the European Union—and it was also a Conservative manifesto commitment.
Yes, we are out of the European Union, but it would be great if the Government actually got on and said what they felt were the important things to do. There has been nothing on live transport and, equally, nothing on the kept animals Bill. Again, that was a manifesto commitment which we can now act on because we are outside the European Union. That would deal with illegal puppy smuggling, standards in our zoos, keeping primates in our homes and other important issues. We could be dealing with those issues, but we are not. This is a Private Member’s Bill, and I am delighted that the Government have decided to support it. However, it is all very well and good to make political points but, if the Conservatives put things in their manifesto because we are out of the European Union, the Government should deliver on them.
Because we are out of the European Union, we are not in a position to have the leadership role we had when we were members. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly reminded us, some of the countries which are still overfishing are Spain, Portugal and France. We are no longer members of the European Union, where we had a brilliant record of pushing those member states to better animal welfare standards—but we are not at the top table any more.
Having said that and got it off my chest, I return to my point that I am grateful that the Government are supporting the Bill. It is important in terms of the global leadership we should be showing, have shown in the past and need to keep showing in the future. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I commend the small conservation organisations such as the Shark Trust, which do a brilliant job not only campaigning on these issues but helping people to understand the importance of these top predators and disabusing them of some of the misinformation about these magnificent species, which play such an important role in the ecology of our waters.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for introducing the Bill and Christina Rees MP for bringing it through the other place. I start, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, did, by saying how strongly we support the Bill and are pleased to see it in front of us today. As others have done, I pay tribute to the conservation organisations which have been pressing for this, particularly the Shark Trust, which sent a very helpful briefing.
As noble Lords have said, the Bill is so important because of the needless cruelty. In fact, I would say that the practice is just disgusting; I cannot believe it actually happens. Again, it is important to see the Bill in front of us today. Assuming that it goes through—I know it has government support—it then needs to be very promptly adopted, and it needs to reinforce the UK’s position as a global leader in shark conservation and sustainable fishing, as other noble Lords have said.
We have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others that the biggest threat to sharks is overfishing driven by demand for many different products, including meat, cartilage and liver oil as well as the fins. Shark finning has of course been banned in many major fishing nations. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that it was banned by the EU in 2003, so the EU also has an interest in ending this practice. The other thing we need to think about is that shark-fins are not the only driver of shark fisheries. Banning the trade alone will not curtail the demand for sharks. Having said that, if the Bill is enshrined in law, it will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to shark conservation and sustainable fishing, and we will then have a platform through which we as a nation can encourage other nations to follow suit and also ban these appalling practices.
We have heard that the global trade is significant but that the largest importers are Hong Kong, Malaysia, China and Singapore, which account for 90%. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, UK imports are historically negligible. However, as my noble friend and others pointed out, it is important that we are able to hold other nations to the high standard that we would expect. By being a global leader on this, we can encourage the nations that are trading in this way to look at doing it in a more sustainable way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said—like her, I do not quite understand what that means, but it is clearly better than the current practice that is still allowed. She also talked particularly about conservation and marine life, and this is an important step in taking that forward.
I think it was all the way back in May 2022 that the Government reiterated that they were committed to banning the import and export of detached shark-fins and shark-fin products, originally through the animals abroad Bill, along with other items that were going to be banned through that Bill. We now have some Private Members’ Bills that will arrive in your Lordships’ House at some point that look at other aspects from that Bill, but unfortunately, some seem to have disappeared in their entirety, including the bans on imports of fur and foie gras. Can the Minister say what has happened to the outstanding parts of the animals abroad Bill that we were all promised would be banned by a Conservative Government?
On that note, I will finish by totally supporting the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about other government promises through the kept animals Bill, which finished Committee in the Commons some time ago now. We are still sitting and waiting for Report on that and to hear what will happen to the pieces of legislation in that which are so important. Are they going to come through piecemeal by PMB? Is that the plan, so that the Government can pick and choose which bits of that Bill they want? If the Government are making all these promises on animal welfare, we need action.
I am very pleased that the Bill is in front of us. It has our strong support, and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch gave an absolutely excellent introduction to it. However, I am concerned about not just this but everything else that was promised as well.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, may I say at the outset what a joy it is to respond to a Bill that has universal support? While I am enjoying the moment, I observe that the Bill requires legislative consent Motions from the devolved Governments, and I am pleased to say that, where appropriate, those are being provided.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her sponsorship of this important Bill and for the powerful manner in which she has made her case. She is indeed a worthy champion of the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I am also very grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate. I pay tribute to the honourable Christina Rees, who successfully steered the Bill through the other place with passion and clarity, as well as to stakeholders such as the Shark Trust, as other noble Lords mentioned, for their support as we progress this important legislation.
As your Lordships are no doubt aware by now, shark finning is vile and cruel. Shark-fins are removed from a living shark at sea and their finless bodies are wastefully returned to the water. Without their fins, sharks are unable to swim, which means they cannot pass oxygen through their gills so are left slowly to drown. As the honourable Member said,
“the effects of shark finning are devastating, with impacts seen across … species”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/22; col. 654.]
We have over 40 species of shark around the coast of the United Kingdom, including some of the rarest, largest, fastest and most highly migratory in the world. From the sleek and elegant blue shark to the second-largest fish in the sea, the basking shark, the UK has a wealth of shark diversity in its waters.
Shark finning is a practice that has been banned in the UK for almost 20 years, and we also have a “fins naturally attached” policy that means sharks must be landed with all their fins on their bodies, but we are now going further and banning the trade in detached fins and shark-fin products. This underlines the UK Government’s commitment that shark finning must stop, wherever it takes place.
As other noble Lords have said, the greatest threat to sharks is overfishing, driven by the demand for shark products such as their fins. Enshrining the Shark Fins Bill in UK law will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to shark conservation and sustainable fishing, providing a platform from which to encourage action by other nations and fisheries bodies. This Bill gives us the opportunity to be a leading example in shark conservation and enable the UK to hold other nations to the same standard.
As well as an ambitious domestic agenda for sharks, the UK Government champion shark conservation internationally through fora such as CITES, RFMOs and CMS. The UK has long been pressing for stronger international action to protect sharks and was pleased to support the listing of almost 100 shark and ray species, a significant portion of which were co-sponsored by the UK, on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, following a successful Conference of the Parties in Panama last year. This landmark agreement has placed nearly all shark species traded internationally for their fins under CITES, and the UK remains committed to the implementation of these listings.
The UK has also funded a significant portion of efforts to implement existing shark CITES listings, ensuring they are effective and enforceable. This includes pioneering work with international partners to develop identification guides for all listed shark and ray species. The UK has also supported the implementation of further measures in RFMOs, specifically pushing for crucial catch limits to be put in place for commercially exploited shark species to prevent overfishing of species such as blue shark and shortfin mako.
In 2021 it was agreed at ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, that parties should implement a prohibition on retaining on board, transhipping and landing, whole or in part, North Atlantic shortfin mako caught in association with ICCAT fisheries in 2022 and 2023. This was a pivotal agreement, strongly advocated for by the UK, which will be the first step in rebuilding the stock of the species. As of 1 April, we will also see this species on the prohibited species list, further reinforcing our commitment to the protection of this species.
The convention on migratory species is another key example where the UK has supported the listing of shark species. The CMS provides a global platform for the conservation of migratory species in which we will continue to work with like-minded countries, especially to develop shared objectives on the global conservation and management of sharks.
To turn briefly to the detail of the Shark Fins Bill, it will ban the import and export of detached shark-fins into or out of Great Britain. This ban not only applies to whole shark-fins but includes parts of fins and products made of fins, such as tinned shark-fin soup. In this context, “shark-fins” means any fins or parts of fins of a shark, except for pectoral fins, which are part of skate and ray wings, and “shark” means any fish of the taxon Elasmobranchii. This is all set out in detail in Clause 1.
There is only one exception to this ban, which is where imports or exports will support greater conservation, for example through education and training. This point was raised by the noble Baroness in her opening speech. Importantly, there are strict processes in place to assess applications for exemption certifications to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban. This exemption process is clearly set out in the Schedule to the Bill. There are penalties of up to £3,000 where the applicant has deliberately provided inaccurate or incomplete information.
In Clause 2, the Bill also amends the existing shark finning regulation 1185/2003, which forms part of retained EU law and includes the amendments in regulation 605/2013. The amendment in this Bill is to make sure that shark finning is not taking place by any other country’s vessels fishing in UK waters, or by any UK vessel wherever it fishes. We remain firmly committed to building on the UK’s strong position on shark conservation.
In supporting this Bill, the Government have conducted a thorough regulatory triage assessment to assess the impacts. We conducted research to assess the costs to businesses and government associated with these measures, and the good news is that this Bill will involve very low public expenditure and costs to business. The imports and exports of shark-fins are already checked for compliance with CITES, so these existing processes will be used to enforce the new requirements in the Shark Fins Bill.
My noble friend Lord Hannan was right to speak of the UK’s leadership and stewardship of marine life but, to be even-handed, I suggest that being in the EU did not impact our ability to designate marine conservation areas around the UK, which was a UK-driven commitment. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned two opportunities for the UK to continue to demonstrate its global commitment and leadership in CITES and CMS. I am sure that my Defra officials present will take note. The noble Baroness also mentioned the kept animals Bill, which my officials say is on Report in the House of Commons. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned foie gras and fur imports in the animals abroad Bill. I will endeavour to write to her with the exact status of those initiatives.
These animals are irreplaceable components of nature’s rich tapestry. We must do all we can to create an agenda to protect the ocean’s richness and diversity. I am sure that noble Lords all agree that this is an imperative for future generations. I conclude on behalf of the Government by thanking noble Lords for their involvement in today’s debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her work in guiding the Bill through this House. I also thank the non-governmental organisations that have engaged with our officials throughout the passage of the Bill. This Bill will add a small but vital part to our legislation. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s support for it, and I hope that we can ensure its smooth passage through this House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed and given their support. As others said, it is a pleasure to work on such a collegiate and cross-party basis and to be part of this debate.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who made an excellent contribution about the moral leadership we should give. He also quite rightly made the point that sometimes we underplay our leading role as a marine nation and how powerful we are on the international stage because of it. He could not resist mentioning us leaving the EU. As other noble Lords have counterattacked, I say to him that we have given up our leadership in the EU, where we were always a leading voice on animal welfare issues. Now we are doing it from the sidelines, when we could have been at the heart of it. That is a much bigger debate that I am sure he would love to participate further in, but maybe not today.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who again reminded us of the international opportunities that we have to press the case and to ensure that we play a leading part internationally in delivering not only these sorts of measures but a wide range of other marine conservation measures. She made the point, as other noble Lords did, about the cruelty that underlines it. It is purely a cruel thing to do. Even if people feel that the cruelty itself is not sufficient, it is also such a waste that you then throw the remaining carcass back into the sea and that it is not used in any useful way, so there are so many strong arguments for this.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hayman that shark finning is only one step in the conservation of sharks and that we need to do considerably more. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about octopuses. Maybe that should be our next campaign. I would be very happy to join with her on that one.
A number of noble Lords made the point that this is a Private Member’s Bill and that we are going about this on a very piecemeal basis. I agree with all those points. How much easier it would be if we had the more substantive Bills we have been promised on this. There are outstanding issues around a live export ban, a ban on fur imports, the import of foie gras and many other issues. I am sure we are all pleased to hear that the kept animals Bill is on its way and look forward to participating in that. There are many more debates to be had, but in the meantime I am very grateful for all the support we have been given today.
Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
Friday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 View all Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2023 - (3 Feb 2023)
Baroness Burt of Solihull
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it is with pleasure that I bring this Bill before you today. Its full title is the “Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill”—and it does what it says on the tin. The Bill is about protecting workers specifically from workplace harassment. It amends the Equality Act 2010 to strengthen the legislative protections against workplace harassment committed by third parties, to ultimately help create safer working environments fit for the way we consider workers should be treated today.
I give my heartfelt thanks to my honourable friend the Member for Bath, Wera Hobhouse, for introducing such important legislation and guiding it through the other place. Under her excellent leadership the Bill received strong support from all parties, and from the Government; I hope we can replicate that in this House today.
Before I set out further detail on the measures in the Bill, I first turn to the important context behind it. Five years ago, the #MeToo movement went viral, with over 12 million people around the world sharing the phrase “Me Too” on social media as a declaration of the sexual harassment or violence they had each experienced. This global phenomenon kickstarted much-needed conversations, not only on social media and in the press but in this House. The resulting parliamentary debates and inquiries shone a spotlight on the many appalling experiences of sexual and other harassment in UK workplaces, and it became obvious that this country needed to do better for working people.
The Government Equalities Office’s own survey on sexual harassment in the workplace in 2020 found that nearly a third of all employees surveyed had experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or work-related environment in the previous 12 months alone. This is truly awful—and up with this we must not put.
Recent revelations and press stories have also exposed the vulnerability of workers in this country to workplace harassment by third parties such as customers and clients. For example, we all remember the furore following the Presidents Club charity dinner in 2018, at which female hostesses were allegedly told to wear “black, sexy” underwear and subsequently accused customers of sexual harassment. However, the Equality Act 2010 currently provides no protections for people in such a situation, as the alleged harassment was conducted by a third party rather than a fellow employee. This is the loophole we are trying to close in the Bill. And it is not just third-party sexual harassment that workers are at risk of: there is currently no redress for any third-party harassment under the Equality Act 2010. For example, retail staff who face racist abuse from customers, NHS workers who are subject to homophobic harassment by patients, and pub staff who are harassed by drunken customers in relation to their sex all currently have to rely on the good will of their employer in taking steps to protect them, rather than the law. In the course of doing their job, nobody should have to face that.
The Bill will introduce employer liability for the harassment of their employees by third parties in the course of their employment if the employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, and it will introduce a new legal duty requiring employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace. Whereas the employer duty will apply to sexual harassment only, I should be clear that the new third-party harassment protections will cover all types of harassment under the Equality Act 2010. Both new provisions will be enforceable in two ways: by individuals bringing claims to the employment tribunal, and by the Equality and Human Rights Commission undertaking strategic enforcement under their current statutory powers. A breach of the new employer duty may lead to an uplift in compensation awarded to a claimant by an employment tribunal of up to 25% in individual cases.
I understand that there were and are some concerns about the Bill’s interaction with free speech. In particular, some have suggested that, as a result of the Bill, employers will feel that they need to take extreme steps to avoid liability for workplace harassment, including by shutting down conversations and valid expressions of opinion between third parties such as customers in a pub. However, noble Lords will note that, on Report in the Commons, a government amendment introduced into the Bill Clause 1(3), and proposed subsections (1C) and (1D) under Clause 1(2), to clarify for employers and the employment tribunal that such steps are absolutely not required. The amendment was accepted by Members in the other place, and I hope it assuages any concerns noble Lords may have in this regard, although I know that the Minister will speak to this when she makes her remarks.
Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the Bill will not come into force until 12 months after Royal Assent, during which time the EHRC will be developing a new statutory code of practice to take account of the measures in the Bill. This code will be published and subject to a full consultation. In addition, the Government have committed to producing further guidance for employers on the practical steps that they can take to help prevent harassment in their workplaces. These documents will help to make sure that employers know what is expected of them under the Bill and the wider Equality Act 2010, support them and employment tribunals in its accurate implementation and, in doing so, protect against any unintended consequences.
I, my honourable friend the Member for Bath and government officials are already in conversation with industry bodies, including UK Hospitality, to this end. However, in the light of assurances sought from me, can the Minister assure the Fawcett Society and the #ThisIsNotWorking Alliance that the Government will closely monitor the impact of the government amendment and will take remedial action if it is found to be detrimentally interfering with the spirit of the wider reforms? The prize is to make third-party sexual harassment a thing of the past that does not belong in the culture of any workplace for any worker who has a customer-facing role.
To conclude, as my honourable friend the Member for Bath said in her own speech:
“We have turned a blind eye to workplace sexual harassment for far too long. This Bill will help to prevent harassment, protect victims and change the culture around victim blaming.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/22; col. 6.]
I hope that my fellow noble Lords will help to ensure its safe passage, so that we can see it on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, what was the freedom that we really felt the loss of during the pandemic and the associated lockdowns? I suggest that it was above all the freedom of association and assembly. We did not lose the right to speak out, to vote or to worship as we pleased, but we lost the right to congregate in whatever combinations pleased us. It seems to me that freedom of assembly rests fundamentally on freedom of contract. People should be allowed to come to freestanding agreements, one with another, without the state interpolating itself and declaring those agreements to be void.
This is a principle that, far from having been strengthened by our recent experience, appears to be abandoned the world over, in this country not least. We are subject, as so often, to trends from across the Atlantic. This is happening on both sides of the aisle, as they say on the other side.
There has always been a chunk of, let us say, the identitarian left that has subordinated the concept of free contract to the imperatives of identity politics, so all questions of freedom of association tend to be seen through the prism of whether some imaginary club would be allowed to exclude somebody on the grounds of ethnicity. I suppose it is conceivable that such a thing could happen today, but it seems an odd way to determine a general principle. Hard cases make bad law, and hard imaginary cases make particularly bad law.
However, I am more interested in the way the concept of free association and free contract is under attack from the right. I was very struck, for example, by the Governor of Florida, who is being talked up as a potential presidential candidate. He bases a lot of his campaign on having kept Florida open and having avoided the worst of the lockdowns, and yet, such is the nature of the culture war, he was passing laws in Florida outlawing vaccine mandates even on private property—and that seems to me a fundamentally illiberal thing to be doing.
For what it is worth, I thought vaccine mandates were difficult to justify. We now know that vaccines were very good at protecting you but actually very bad at preventing transmission and therefore the case for state intervention was weak. But be that as it may, surely an individual shopkeeper, cafe owner or whatever is allowed to require whatever terms he or she wants from his or her customers. If they say “You can’t come in here without wearing a mask” or indeed, “We won’t serve you without a tie” or “You can’t stay in this hotel with children or pets” or whatever, surely that should be fundamentally a question of freedom and property. Yet, like so many of these trends, it is crossing the Atlantic, and we now in this Bill are starting from the assumption that it is up to the Government to determine things.
I am going to leave the free-speech stuff as I see my noble friends Lord Strathcarron, Lord Leicester and Lord Moylan are speaking after me. I will leave it all to them. I have listened to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place and she says that all these things have been anticipated, and I am sure she would agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said about the amendments to prevent conversations becoming a source of harassment. But I think there is a wider issue here. Should we not be starting from the proposition that, without a very good reason, it ought to be up to the employer and the employee to seek terms? I find it extraordinary, for example, that we are seriously discussing in this country at the moment whether there should be a statutory right to demand working from home or flexible work. You can do that now. What is to stop anyone saying to their employer, “These are the conditions I would like” and then negotiating them? The idea that we have to go to the Government and get a sort of licence to talk about these things strikes me as fundamentally incompatible with being an open society.
So I ask the Minister: are we certain that we have exhausted every other avenue before we reach for further legislation? It seems to me a fundamental principle of a free society that if I want to work for, let us say, my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia, and he offers me a job, and I am happy with the terms of the contract and so is he, the Government should not come between us and declare our arrangement to be illegal. If, for example, I say, “D’you know, I don’t care about paid holiday, I’d rather have a lump sum”, that should be between us. Is that not fundamentally a question of what we mean by freedom and property?
So please will the Minister reassure us that we have exhausted our arsenal? We have perfectly good, old common-law provisions defending the individual against harassment. We have perfectly good laws against incitement. They do not cease to apply in the workplace. Are we certain that we need this additional legislation and that it is not the worst kind of declamatory legislation—virtue signalling by law—because those statutes invariably end up being the ones with the most unintended consequences?
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I declare two levels of interest, as a publisher and trustee of a national designated museum.
My objections to the Bill concern only the effect of Clause 1 on freedom of speech and the inadequacies of the government amendments. Everyone knows about the law of unintended consequences, but more relevant here would be another famous law: the law of dangerous assumptions. The assumptions here are threefold and concern the three categories involved: employers, employees and third parties. The Bill assumes that employers are overwhelmingly uncaring and unsympathetic towards their employees. It assumes that employees need to be treated like a protected species, unable to deal with the comings and goings of life in the workplace, and it assumes that third parties—the general public—are disproportionately likely to be foul-mouthed, insensitive and unwittingly offensive.
These unrealistic assumptions amount to a classic case of a solution looking for a problem. In this case, the solution is so draconian, and the size of the problem so minuscule, that the free-speech aspect of the Bill fails the first and most elementary parliamentary test: is it really necessary? The cumulative effect of these unrealistic assumptions can be seen in the Bill as it stands: to turn our fundamental right to freedom of speech into a management-style risk. These may or may not have been the intentions, but they will certainly be the consequences. I prefer the charitable interpretation that they are not intentional, and they just have not been thought through. Thankfully, that is the task of your Lordships’ House as we scrutinise what comes our way.
To take real-world examples of why this part of the Bill will not work in practice, I refer to my declared interests. I publish about 50 books a year and the marketing of each book requires that my team come into contact with the general public—third parties—either at a book launch or a literary festival, or sometimes both. To take the example of a book launch, this would be a private event with invitations sent out to between 50 and 100 guests and I would typically have three or four employees there. In order to be said to have taken “all reasonable steps”, I should on the invitation request that guests do not talk to staff about any subjects relating to sex, gender, race, religion, origins or any other sensitive matter—even if what one says is perfectly legal. I ask your Lordships, after seeing such an invitation—one that discourages any form of legal sociability—would you go to such a cold-water event? Would Waterstones, for example, risk an in-store book signing by JK Rowling or Helen Joyce on the offchance that one of the author’s fans might be wearing a T-shirt that says, “Woman Equals Adult Human Female”, knowing that an employee could sue for hurt feelings—real or vexatious? These are real issues facing real businesses. I suggest we are wading into very dangerous waters.
Less parochially than my own media world, do we really want to live in a society where intelligent people cannot talk to each other openly and legally, for fear of saying something unintentionally offensive in the ebb and flow of normal conversation? Do we really want these conversations to have any rules at all, beyond being legal, let alone to be governed by the ever-evolving vagaries of compliance culture, guarding against the tiny percent who might offend, probably accidentally.
The rules change all the time. If I said the words “woman” or “headquarters” at an Oxfam event and one of its employees took offence and complained, how much trouble would it be in? I note that it invented the offence only a few days ago. I hope we can agree that this is a nonsense that turns one of our most basic freedoms—freedom of speech—from a right to a risk.
The museum I mentioned is a charity, and we receive about 400,000 visitors a year—all totally random members of the public, with totally random views on any particular subject. We have a staff of about 100, many of whom will come into contact with the visitors—the so-called “third parties” mentioned in the Bill. It is quite possible that a few of our staff might be among those who are recreationally offended. If we are very unlucky, there might be one who is professionally offended, and there may be a few who are just easily offended. We just do not know, because we have never had to pry into the private prejudices of our staff before, as we will now have to do to protect ourselves, if these provisions stand.
On the other side of the gate, by no means can we expect all of the 400,000 visitors to be up to date with the current thing, to be courteous or even to be sober. Any encounters between our visitors and staff are totally outside our control. What one is saying to the other is almost certainly legal, and yet, under the terms of the Bill, we will be responsible for the outcomes. This is not only obviously unfair; it is unworkable and inevitably adds totally unnecessary costs for the charity.
On Report in the other place, the Government added last-minute free-speech protection amendments but, on close reading, all these conditions would have to apply in each occurrence, which, taken together, amounts to an extremely narrow and highly unlikely set of circumstances. As I said, this was all done in a last-minute rush and has not been properly thought through. This is easily remedied by adding the word “or” to them, which would at least mitigate some of these encroachments, although, at this stage, we are dealing with least-worst options, regrettably.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I declare my tourism and leisure interests—within those businesses, I have probably 250 employees. I am extremely concerned about the Bill, which will have grave implications for freedom of speech as well as imposing huge compliance costs on Britain’s 1.5 million businesses. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is the most momentous and far-reaching piece of legislation currently before Parliament—yet it has received very little parliamentary scrutiny and provoked almost no debate in the public square. If the Bill were merely concerned with sexual harassment, I would have very few objections to it. Indeed, when it was flagged up to representatives in the hospitality sector, their understanding, without exception, was that the only form of third-party harassment that employers will be liable for if the Bill becomes law is sexual harassment. So there is a lack of understanding because of the lack of debate.
Clause 1 will create liability for third-party harassment of all kinds, not merely sexual harassment. Just as employers are currently liable if they have not taken all reasonable steps to prevent an employee overhearing another employee saying something offensive that relates to a protected characteristic, so they will now be liable if an employee overhears a member of the public saying something offensive. This should alarm any of us concerned with free speech, regulatory overreach and the spread of compliance culture.
If the Bill becomes law, businesses will treat their customers in the same way that they treat their employees, at least in some important aspects. Therefore, just like employees, customers are likely to be bound by formal and binding HR-style rules that govern how they interact with employees, so that the employer can demonstrate that it has taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent third-party harassment and so it can begin to manage the multifarious risks that arise from a legal prohibition against unintentional offence. Being told to use your staff’s preferred gender pronouns would be the tip of the iceberg.
Just earlier this week, I saw on Twitter—and I do not go on there that much these days—an unsavoury incident of a young trans woman filming herself shouting at a young server in a fast-food store. That server was doubtless themselves on the minimum wage. She was accusing him of misgendering her by calling her “sir.” The trans woman had evidently taken offence, but rather than quietly and politely correcting the young server that “he” was in fact a “she”, she was screaming blue murder and making quite a scene. The young worker was certainly harassed and could have a case against his employer, but how could the employer have guessed that this might happen? If they had guessed that this might be an eventuality, they could have instituted some gender recognition training, doubtless at a large cost to the company—and the quality of the training out there is arguable. Witness our own Valuing Everyone equally training here in this House, which was frankly patronising at best. That might have placated 48% of the 18-24 year-olds who believe that people should declare or display their pronouns, but not the remaining 52%, or the vast majority of older people who do not see the need or point of such virtue-signalling.
It is hard to conceive how any Government, least of all a Conservative one, should conclude that the compliance culture of HR departments, with their dogmatic rigidity, unreflective worship of fashionable orthodoxy and complete deadness to nuance and complexity, should be expanded beyond the workplace and into pubs, shops, theatres and sports grounds. Yet that is precisely what this Bill will do.
The Equality Act has chilled the atmosphere in workplaces up and down the country with people living in fear of saying the wrong thing and being reported to HR. That chill is now going to spread beyond the workplace into those places where people spend their leisure time. Is that really what the British people want—to live in a society where, if they are overheard telling a saucy joke or expressing an incorrect opinion, such as saying that they do not think trans women are women, they could be permanently banned from their favourite pub or restaurant? Hugh Osmond, the head of Punch Taverns, said:
“How could we stop a group of people coming into a pub and having an offensive chat in the comer? You may even need extra staff walking around the pub policing conversation. You wouldn’t find rules this strict in China or Russia”.
I question whether the UK’s under-threat pub sector will be able to shoulder the compliance costs and liability that Clause 1 imposes. An industry predominantly made up of small owner-operators, who do not have the resources to deal with this, is already under threat. One reason I voted to leave in the 2016 referendum was that, when we joined the EEC more than 50 years ago, Europe had 33% of world trade. When we voted to leave the EU, its share of trade had fallen to 17%. My take on this is that the EU is effectively legislating itself out of business. Extra-burdensome legislation is the last thing that this country needs as we struggle with the cost of living crisis, the mountain of debt built up as a result of our handling of the Covid pandemic, and inflation. This Bill needs a huge rethink.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it pains me to find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, with whom I have worked on another cause in your Lordships’ House and for whom that I have the highest respect. I know she is motivated only by the highest considerations in bringing forward this Bill.
First, I shall address Clause 2, which I do not think has been mentioned so far. I wish to summarise and dispose of it, so to speak, but I want to come back to it later, which is why I think it is worth mentioning. Clause 2 imposes a duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. It is already the case that sexual harassment in the workplace can give rise to actions against employers, but there is no corresponding duty on their part to prevent it happening. This clause is aimed at filling that gap—uncontroversially, in my view—and that is absolutely fine.
The meat of the Bill is in Clause 1. Clause 1 is an attempt to respond to, in some ways, the events that occurred at the Presidents Club dinner some years ago, which, I say straight away, in my opinion were wholly reprehensible and should not have been allowed to happen, and the people involved should have some form of redress. I believe they do but not necessarily through the Equality Act as it stands, hence Clause 1 coming forward to address those issues.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for arranging a meeting for me with the Government Equalities Office, which supports the Bill. I am grateful too for the written briefing that I have had from the Fawcett Society, in which it draws attention to the fact that 56% of women working in the hospitality sector experience sexual harassment. That is clearly unacceptable, but the first question to ask is: does Clause 1 do anything for them? What does it do for the people who served and were abused at the Presidents Club dinner? I think it probably does nothing for them at all, because it specifically says that it applies to employees.
I know nothing about the Presidents Club dinner and the particular arrangements on that occasion, but I know that, in general, it is the case that where large banquets and other events like that take place, even in hotels, the staff are normally supplied by a silver service agency, which does not employ them in the first place. I once had an office in the same corridor as a silver service agency—a very reputable firm that supplied staff to many events throughout London. The office was occupied only by the owner of the business and his secretary; there were no other employees. The staff who were supplied to wait at table at such events were very often students and people like that. They were part of a contact list, and the owner would assemble these people as occasion required. They were contract workers. Section 40 of the Equality Act defines employees, and generally speaking the status of employee arises for someone who has a contract of employment. However, a contract worker is not an employee, and they are dealt with in a separate part of the Equality Act.
So my first comment is that I do not think that Clause 1 would have done anything at all for staff working at the Presidents Club dinner, nor would it do anything for other people in similar circumstances, because large numbers of people in the hospitality sector are not in employed status but are in fact contract workers. It seems to me that the Bill does not even do what it intends and sets out to do.
Secondly—again taking the Presidents Club dinner as the starting point—the Bill chooses to go way beyond sexual harassment. Clause 2 is about sexual harassment but is not pertinent to the Presidents Club dinner. Clause 1 defines the harassment simply as “harassment”; it does not say “sexual harassment”. However, in Section 26 of the Equality Act harassment is defined, and it covers all relevant protected characteristics. So the Bill goes way beyond sexual harassment, as I think my noble friend Lord Strathcarron mentioned, and would concern religion and all the other protected characteristics in the Act. That seems to me to be an overreach and a misfiring of the Bill, which could be so much better targeted at the evil that it intends to address.
This brings us to the freedom of speech problems. Because the net has been cast so wide and covers all protected characteristics, the problems that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron instantiated in relation to his own experience as a modest publisher and a trustee of a museum immediately arise. In places with large numbers of persons having access, the policies that will need to be put in place will need to be very in-the-face of those who are likely to have access to such an event. I do not know what they will consist of, but—this is another important point—they all have to be reasonable steps.
The Fawcett Society brief says that employers will be required to take “reasonable steps”. That is not what the Bill says; it says, “all reasonable steps”. There is a world of difference in law, as I understand it, between “reasonable steps” and “all reasonable steps”. A small business, which might take the reasonable steps that it can see for itself but which fails to take other steps that larger businesses are taking—perhaps it is not even aware that those larger businesses are taking those steps—would be found to have failed to have taken all reasonable steps. At the very least, it should be required to do what the Fawcett Society thinks it will be doing and take “reasonable steps”. In my view, the word “all” needs to be removed.
I will now slightly repeat a point made by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron in coming to the question of the defence inserted by the Commons in new subsections (1C) and (1D). The meat is in new subsection (1C), where we find conditions which have to be met before that particular section can be prayed in aid by an employer. As drafted, all those conditions have to be met. I will not read them out because noble Lords have them in front of them and they are easily read, but each is quite onerous in itself, and cumulatively they will barely be available to employers when they come to an employment tribunal, should they do so. All this will do is result in more and more policies and more and more compliance culture as employers attempt to protect themselves from being sued, because their objective is to avoid ending up in an employment tribunal in the first place rather than to have a defence when they get there, which is completely understandable.
My final point is more of a query, because I am doing my very best on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said that there would be a statutory code of conduct issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which would show how the Bill would work. However, I cannot find it in the Bill; I cannot find a basis in the Bill for such a code of conduct. The notes produced by our own Library in the House of Lords say, as the noble Baroness said, that there will be a statutory code of conduct and that this is referred to in the Explanatory Notes. Look though I might in the Explanatory Notes, I cannot find that either. But then I note that the Library note puts this remark about a statutory code under its explication of Clause 2, so it possibly means that there will be a statutory code of conduct in relation to Clause 2. That would be absolutely fine—I have come back to Clause 2, as I said I would. I regard Clause 2 as uncontroversial, so supporting it with a statutory code of conduct seems to be a sensible step. But where is the evidence that there will be statutory code of conduct in relation to Clause 1, which is the one that is causing us so much difficulty?
Moreover, a point of considerable concern is that even if we find that there is to be such a statutory code of conduct—my noble friend the Minister might be able to give an assurance and explain what its statutory basis is—we are, in effect, outsourcing to the commission most of the substance of the operation of this clause that we are being asked to approve today. I think that is rather troublesome.
I do not say, as my noble friend did, that this piece of legislation has been rushed. I do not know whether it has been rushed, but it is ill thought out and misses the point. It does not do anything for the people it is trying to help, and it creates difficulties in other areas. My view is that it would be sensible if it were withdrawn and rethought; otherwise, it will have to be amended in Committee.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to this place. I pay tribute to colleagues in the other place for their involvement, particularly in the debate that took place. I state from the outset our disappointment that the Bill is necessary at this moment in time. It reintroduces provisions made by the last Labour Government under the Equality Act 2010 that were removed by the coalition Government in 2013, who justified it by stating that the protections imposed an unnecessary burden on business. Surely, protecting people from harassment, especially in the workplace, should be seen never as a burden but as a responsibility. It is pleasing that, nine years later, there has been a change of heart by the Government, but concern remains about the length of time that has elapsed since 2019, when consultation on strengthening protections against harassment in the workplace was launched.
It is important to restate the scale of what we are facing. This needs to be listened to, heard and repeated on all occasions. Workplace sexual harassment is experienced by a minimum of 40% of women. Currently, the law on workplace sexual harassment is enforced only by individual women taking cases forward and there is no duty on employers to take preventive steps, but we know that this is not working. Some 79% of women do not report their experiences. The reforms in the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill ensure that more employees are protected and that more employers take responsible steps to prevent harassment.
At a minimum, as I said, 40% of women in the workforce experience sexual harassment over the course of their careers. Different women experience different rates and forms of harassment. Women and men of colour report even higher rates of sexual harassment. Seven in 10 disabled women and 68% of LGBTQ+ workers have experienced workplace harassment. Occupations where workers are exposed to male third parties—customers, clients or patients—also carry a higher risk for women who work in them. Some 56% of women working in the hospitality industry have experienced sexual harassment, as have 47% of those working in the services industries. In 2017 a survey showed that up to 18% of those who had experienced workplace sexual harassment said that the perpetrator was a client or customer.
Sexual harassment causes a variety of harms, including psychological, physical and economic. Morally and legally, employers should be required to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment occurring. Disrespectful and abusive workplaces also have lower performance and productivity, and increased staff turnover.
What do we need to change? It is highlighted in the Bill. We have mentioned third-party harassment; we are trying to seek ways to make sure that staff members who face these problems have legal protection. The extent to which women who work in client-facing roles are unprotected by current laws was highlighted, as we heard, in the highly publicised Presidents Club scandal. The women who faced violations of their dignity in that case would not have had recourse to the law as it currently stands.
As I said, this was briefly on the statute book from 2010 to 2013 but was removed because the Government at the time believed that protection was present elsewhere in the law. However, following a subsequent court case, the Government now accept that there is a gap in the law. As I think we have heard, data from the House of Commons Library using the Government’s own survey indicates that 1.5 million people experience sexual harassment from a third party each year.
On the preventive duty, as I said, despite the protections in existing law, workplace sexual harassment is widespread. It is underreported for many reasons, including fear of repercussion, lack of awareness regarding rights, and fear of not being taken seriously. I am afraid to say that those fears are well founded. The EHRC found that in nearly half the cases where employees made a report, the employer took no action, minimised the incident or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser.
Our current laws on sexual harassment mean that employers are not required to be proactive and take action to drive the necessary change. This also leaves managers not knowing how to respond appropriately. Only 45% of managers feel supported by their organisation when reports are made to them. Most importantly, it leaves women who have encountered traumatic experiences unsupported. We can and surely must do better.
The law needs to shift focus from redress to prevention. Currently, the question of whether employers have taken adequate steps to prevent harassment arises as a defence only if an incident of sexual harassment has already occurred. This of course means that employers are not required to take actions that prevent sexual harassment occurring. In 2018 the EHRC found that only a minority of employers had effective processes to prevent and address sexual harassment.
Over the last few years we have seen the Government make various commitments to take action. In 2021 the Government’s response to a 2019 consultation on workplace sexual harassment led them to make commitments to introduce a new preventive duty for employers, introduce more explicit protection from harassment by third parties, and consider extending time limits for Equality Act claims in the employment tribunal from three to six months. Do those commitments remain government policy? It was perplexing for us all, having had these commitments, to find no reference to them in the Queen’s Speech last year. We hope that the Bill is the mechanism through which these changes can be enacted on to the statute book.
So we are looking for answers to the issue of employer liability for third-party sexual harassment and the standalone preventive duty. As we heard earlier, at Third Reading in the other place, the Government amended the Bill so that employers will not be liable for workplace harassment, other than sexual harassment, where it arises as a result of a protected conversation. It is questionable whether this amendment is necessary. However, the implementation of a preventive duty and third-party liability is indeed a big step forward and consequently, we continue to support the Bill.
I have some questions for the Minister today. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, in her request for information on how the amendment’s impact will be monitored and what remedial action will be taken if it does indeed interfere detrimentally with the spirit of the wider reforms. The Government have indicated their commitment to the reforms, but are they still committed to extending from three months to six months the time limit for bringing to the employment tribunal all claims made under the Equality Act? Many organisations support this extension, as the current three-month limit means that pregnant women have to bring a case in the first few months after birth, and sexual harassment victims when they are still incredibly traumatised.
It goes without saying that I look forward to the Minister’s response to the matters raised today. I particularly look forward to hearing that the Government are committed to supporting the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on leading this important debate and I compliment her on her excellent introduction to the Bill. Similarly, I pay tribute to the honourable Member for Bath, who introduced this Bill in the other place, where it enjoyed cross-party support and the full support of the Government. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed to today’s Second Reading debate. It is with great pleasure that I reaffirm the Government’s support for the Bill.
As the House is well aware, the harassment of workers remains all too common. The Government’s own experimental survey uncovered completely unacceptable levels of sexual harassment, and the recent review of the Metropolitan Police by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, shows how harassment and discrimination can be baked into a system. The testimony and the data make it clear that mistreatment of women is a feature of the toxic culture that we have seen revealed in her report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for giving us more information on this issue and bringing it into sharp relief today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, set out the details of the Bill’s two main measures, and I want to take the opportunity to reiterate their importance. The third-party harassment protection and employer duty represent a significant strengthening of protections for those affected by harassment at work. What is more, they will not only raise awareness of the nature of harassment but motivate employers to prioritise the prevention of workplace harassment and, ultimately, improve workplace practices and culture.
I will touch on the Bill’s interaction with free speech, and the government amendment made on Report in the other place. Let me be clear: we have listened not just here to Members today but to those outside this House. We understand that there are real concerns about constraints on free speech and how our laws can have a chilling effect on the ability of people to speak their minds and voice their opinions.
The Bill is about the harassment of workers, and it is right, particularly in light of the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that employers take their responsibilities seriously and crack down on harassment and discrimination. Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated.
However, freedom of speech is a vital pillar of our society, and I reassure all noble Lords that the Bill will not inhibit free speech. As well as casual conversations, no one wants to prevent rigorous discussion or intellectual debate, which are crucial to progress in this country. It is for these reasons that we amended Clause 1 to make clear that, while employers will be expected to take action against workplace harassment under the Bill, this should fall short of prohibiting the appropriate conversations of others. That was never the intention of the Bill, and it is now clear on the face of it. We have also specified the conditions which must all be met in order to trigger the amendment, to provide full clarity.
Some of the concerns expressed are about the “what if” questions. It is right that we test and rigorously examine the scope of the Bill, but legislators can go only so far in predicting and accounting for every scenario. The amendment we have put in place signals to employers where their ceiling of action should be, and the Government trust that they are best placed to assess how to implement the law according to the business within which they operate.
The implementation of the Bill will be supported by guidance from the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government have committed to support the EHRC in developing a statutory code of practice on workplace harassment, which will be published as the measures in the Bill come into force, one year after Royal Assent.
We have had assurances from the EHRC that it agrees that the measures in the Bill are a necessary and proportionate means of preventing unlawful harassment and are compatible with freedom of expression. The EHRC has also reassured us that its new statutory code of practice on workplace harassment will guide tribunals to consider the reasonable foreseeability of harassment occurring when determining employer liability.
The EHRC is rightly independent of government and, as such, it is up to it to determine the contents of the code, following consultation. The code will then be considered by the Secretary of State and, if approved, laid before Parliament. But, in the first instance, we will encourage the EHRC to ensure it clarifies the following points. Here I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that it will include Clause 1 as well as Clause 2.
First, while employers will be expected to take action against workplace harassment under the Bill, this action should fall short of prohibiting the appropriate conversations of others. Secondly, employers will be expected to take only steps that are considered reasonable in their specific circumstances, meaning that the implementation of preventive measures should take into account known risk factors, as well as the size of the organisation and the resources of employers. Lastly, employers are not expected to take extreme or unreasonable steps to prevent the harassment of their employees, including the cancellation or refusal of bookings for lawful events, or hiring “banter bouncers” to actively police conversations in their establishments.
We will also encourage the EHRC to provide examples which are industry specific, such as guidance for venues that host speakers and entertainers, or workplaces which require frequent interaction with third parties.
What is more, the Government will also publish detailed guidance for employers about the kinds of steps they should be taking to prevent harassment in the workplace. This will improve employers’ ability to engage with their existing duties in this area, and help them to ensure that they have taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent harassment. I hope that that answers the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Burt of Solihull. I can provide assurances today that the equality hub will monitor the impact of the Bill, including the amendment, to ensure it is accurately interpreted and implemented according to the spirit of these reforms. The Government will formally review the measures after five years—that was another issue that both noble Baronesses brought up.
Relatedly, I understand that concerns have also been raised about the requirement on employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent workplace harassment—this was brought up by a number of noble Lords. It is important to note that the concept of “all reasonable steps” has been in the Equality Act since its inception in the context of employers’ liability, and that it is well understood by employers and employment tribunals; this is nothing new. What is “reasonable” in any particular context is a question of fact for the tribunal. Factors including the work environment, the size of the organisation and known risk factors, as well as cost and practicality, are all relevant considerations.
What constitutes “all reasonable steps” is not currently defined in law and we do not intend to do so, as this would remove the flexibility to take a proportional approach based on the individual circumstances of the workplace. The alternative would be to set out a list of “all reasonable steps” by workplace context, which would mean creating an extremely complex system that might still not account for every workplace context and certainly would not be exhaustive. While it would therefore be undesirable to define “all reasonable steps”, the Bill as amended now makes clear to employers that, in certain cases, this should not include shutting down conversations or preventing the expression of opinion—in other words, setting a ceiling on what can be considered a “reasonable step” for an employer to take to avoid legal liability for workplace harassment. Both the EHRC’s code of practice and the Government’s guidance will provide further clarity for employers as to what “all reasonable steps” means for them, in addition to the range of existing guidance which is already available for employers in this area, including the EHRC’s current employment code of practice.
I now turn to a few other things—well, more than a few, I think—brought up by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Hannan asked whether we had exhausted non-legislative options to tackle workplace harassment. There is already a wide range of guidance available on workplace harassment, such as the EHRC’s employment code of practice I just mentioned. However, as we have heard today, workplace harassment remains a persistent problem in this country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, outlined. In particular, the Presidents Club scandal that has been mentioned more than once shows exactly where this country’s legislation fails to protect vulnerable workers: without the Bill, we know that workers have no protection from third-party harassment, other than the good will of their employer, and this is just not right.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Moylan, brought up the issue of free speech. I make it clear that the Government appreciate the concerns about free speech. It is a cornerstone of British values and it will only be strengthened, in my opinion, by the Bill. The Bill, though, concerns an employer’s liability only for workplace harassment, not for trivial upset. With all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will be required to balance competing rights on the facts of that particular case, including the rights of freedom of expression and of academic freedom, against the right not to be offended, in deciding whether a person has been harassed.
My noble friend Lord Leicester brought up the issue of burden to businesses. We do not believe that compliance with the Bill needs to be onerous. I should be clear that there is no expectation that employers will be able to stop all harassment ever occurring in their organisation—that would be impossible. Instead, the Bill requires employers to take “all reasonable steps” to try to prevent the harassment happening in the first place.
My noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Leicester asked for an example of how the amendment made to Clause 1 in the other place balances free speech and workplace harassment. It may be that the employment tribunal finds that harassment related to race has occurred where an employee overhears a conversation between two other employees concerning the treatment of immigrants. The employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment by having in place an effective anti-harassment policy. The effect of the amendment is that the policy does not need to include the prohibition of conversations about controversial topics in order for an employer to avoid liability. It is about balance and, from the debate so far, I think noble Lords are misunderstanding the balance that the Government want to achieve in this.
My noble friend Lord Leicester brought up the issue of employers being held for employee hypersensitivity. I can understand the concerns that this Bill will lead to employers being held accountable for merely minor offensive comments made in their workplace, or facing excessive employment tribunal claims from hypersensitive employees. I strongly reassure noble Lords that we are not aware of any evidence that this is the case under the existing employer liability for employee-on-employee harassment, and there is no indication that this will occur as a result of this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Leicester also brought up the burden on the hospitality industry. The Government are clear that compliance with the Bill does not need to be onerous, as I have said. Under current legislation, employers are already expected to take all reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment to avoid legal liability. Employers in the hospitality industry will be experienced in dealing with incidents of harassment carried out by customers and making those judgment calls in their workplace about the most appropriate steps to take to prevent the harassment and abuse of their employees.
My noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Moylan brought up liability for third parties, saying that it should arise only in relation to sexual harassment. It has never been the case that liability for third-party harassment applied only in relation to sexual harassment. The third-party harassment provisions that were originally in the Equality Act applied to all forms of harassment. When considering the reinstatement of these provisions in their 2019 consultation, the Government made it clear that the options discussed would apply equally to all forms of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, not just sexual harassment. The fact that the general theme of the consultation was about sexual harassment will not detract from that.
My noble friend Lord Moylan asked about subcontractors, particularly in relation to the Presidents Club. I am sure that the Bill does not extend to the genuinely self-employed, as they do not fall within the definition of “employment” under the Act, but the Bill therefore covers subcontractors and agency workers. The people employed for the Presidents Club were probably in that group of people, but we would have to check.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Without referring specifically to the Presidents Club dinner, because none of us knows the actual facts of that, I ask in general terms whether, for a large banquet served by persons supplied by a silver service, the liable employer—given that they are not employed—would be the silver service company, the organisers of the banquet or indeed the owners of the premises, which might be an hotel, in which the banquet took place.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will not answer my noble friend, as I do not have a degree in employment law, but I will ensure that I find the answer for him and put a copy in the Library.
My noble friend Lord Moylan also asked why there are so many conditions in the Commons amendment. I understand that a number of conditions all need to be met for the amendment introduced in the other place to be triggered.
I think that is everything. If I have not answered everyone’s questions, I will look in Hansard and make sure that I get a written answer to everyone. At the same time, if noble Lords still have concerns about the Bill and its contents, I would be more than happy to discuss it further with officials. I am happy for anyone to get in touch with me—we will put something in the diary.
I end by underscoring the cross-party support that the Bill enjoyed in the other place, where speakers from all walks of life appealed to this House to maintain that collaborative spirit. So it is with particular determination that I now commend the Bill to the House. The Government are proud to back it and wish it safe passage through its remaining stages.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Wow—this has been quite a discussion. I commend everyone who contributed on the Bill; it shows the degree of concern and even passion that people feel, not only on the part of workers who may be subject to harassment but on the very important issue of free speech, which I will come to in a second.
I thank again my honourable friend the Member for Bath for leading this important legislation up to this point. My gratitude goes to the members of the Equality Hub for their tireless work in developing the policy, and to the Fawcett Society for its advocacy, which ultimately got the Bill to where it is today. My gratitude also goes to the Minister, for reiterating the Government’s support for these new measures, which I know she agrees will bring a real positive change to the lives of many people, particularly the most vulnerable, across all industries.
I will just pick up on a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, was talking about a contract and how you can disagree, make the arrangements and make the changes according to two parties. The problem is that those two parties need to be equal. In my view, the problem here is that people who serve others are not necessarily in an equal situation. That is why it is so important. So many of the people who serve others and carry on these roles are in a lesser position, and they get abused; they get abused a lot. That is what we are seeking to change.
So, while no one would speak more highly of freedom of speech than myself, there is an element of reasonableness that needs to come down when we are discussing these matters. At the bottom of it, the people who are subject to harassment, some of them every day of their lives, do not deserve that. They serve you and me as well, and they deserve to have reasonable systems in place. Nobody is going to intervene and stop a conversation from happening because somebody might get offended. I think the definition of harassment and I take my life into my hands here—is a legal term and for sure I am very far from a legal expert. But we are talking about real distress caused to people who are in that customer-facing role. This is what we are seeking to do today: to at least enable employers to have procedures in place so that people can come to work feeling confident that, even if an incident happens, they will know what to do. They will know that their boss is going to be able to deal with the situation on their behalf. Employers need to think about that. It is a cultural issue that needs to be introduced in so many companies and businesses, for the good of the business but also for the good of the employee themselves.
So I hope that the Minister has managed to assuage some of noble Lords’ concerns. If I can help in any way, I would be more than happy to do so. I therefore invite noble Lords to support the Second Reading of this Bill.