Forced Marriage and Learning Disabilities (Practice Guidelines)

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

To mark the International Day of Disabled Persons today, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, the Forced Marriage Unit (a joint Home Office/Foreign and Commonwealth Office unit) launches multi-agency practice guidelines for supporting people with learning disabilities.

The guidelines have been developed to assist frontline professionals, such as the police, children and adults social care services, education and health professionals, care workers, charities and volunteers handling cases of forced marriage involving people with learning disabilities. It covers issues relating to a person’s capacity to consent and the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to establish this.

The document draws on research carried out by the Ann Craft Trust in partnership with the Judith Trust, and statistics on reports to the Forced Marriage Unit’s helpline. It complements the “Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines: Handling cases of forced marriage” published by the FMU last year and should be read in conjunction with these.

The guidelines can be downloaded from on the Forced Marriage Unit’s webpage at: www.fco.gov.uk/forcedmarriage and hard copies will be placed in House Libraries.

Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (Wickham Laboratories)

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

The Government have today published a report by the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (the Home Office inspectorate) of a review of compliance at Wickham Laboratories, a contract research laboratory designated as a scientific procedure establishment under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (the 1986 Act). Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House and posted on the Home Office website.

Wickham Laboratories was the subject of a report published in November 2009 by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in which a number of detailed issues and concerns were set out based on material gathered by an investigator. In the light of the BUAV report, my predecessor as Home Office Minister responsible for the implementation of the 1986 Act asked the Home Office inspectorate to review and report on the issues and concerns raised in it and for recommendations on any action required.

The review has been thorough and the review report addresses all of the key issues and concerns raised by the BUAV. The Government are grateful for the report and accept its main findings and conclusions. While the majority of concerns raised by the BUAV in their report have not been substantiated, the report identifies a number of potential breaches of the conditions of Wickham Laboratories’ certificate of designation and of one project licence held there. Action to deal with these issues is now in hand.

With regard to the monitoring of the establishment, the review has found that Home Office inspectors have maintained a regular programme of inspections and raised issues of compliance and best practice with staff in a number of areas of activity. However, relatively frequent changes of inspector over the last five years have led to some problems ensuring issues raised by inspectors were followed up by Wickham Laboratories.

It is also accepted that some potential breaches of licence and certificate conditions were not identified by the regular inspection programme. Accordingly, the review recommends measures for stricter oversight of Wickham Laboratories and to ensure that procedures for the handover of establishments between inspectors are always carried out fully. These are being taken forward as a matter of urgency.

Action is also in hand to identify and take forward wider lessons to be learned from the review with regard to the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 more generally.

Animal Experiments: Primates

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Henry Smith]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) how many and (b) what species of non-human primates imported for the purposes of scientific research were categorised as (i) captive-born (or F1 generation) and (ii) captive-bred (F2+ generation) in (A) 2009 and (B) 2010.

[Official Report, 4 November 2010, Vol. 517, c. 876-77W.]

Letter of correction from Lynne Featherstone:

Errors have been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on 4 November 2010. In the table referring to figures from 2009, the number ‘100’ should read ‘85’, the number ‘1,257’ should read ‘1,139’ and the number ‘958’ should read ‘932’.

The answer was as follows:

[Lynne Featherstone]

Although the information currently submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates provides evidence that animals have been born in captivity, there is currently no requirement for the records to indicate whether animals are F1 or F2+. However, from the information available we estimate the respective totals to be as detailed in the following table.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Although the information currently submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates provides evidence that animals have been born in captivity, there is currently no requirement for the records to indicate whether animals are Fl or F2+. However, from the information available we estimate the respective totals to be as detailed in the following table.

Socio-economic Equality Duty

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the announcement yesterday outside Parliament that the Government intend to drop section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which places duties on public bodies to act in respect of socio-economic disadvantage.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

Equality is at the heart of what this coalition Government are all about. We have come together as a coalition to govern on the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility.

In Britain today, those growing up in households that have fallen too far behind still have fewer opportunities available to them and they are still less able to take the opportunities that are available. We need to design intelligent policies that give those at the bottom real opportunities to make a better life for themselves. That is why we are devoting all our efforts and energies to policies that can give people real opportunities to make life better for themselves, and not just to new and unnecessary legislation.

We do not need new laws to come up with policies that open up opportunities, and we do not need new laws to come up with policies that support and protect the most vulnerable. We have already begun to implement them. That is why over the course of the spending review, we will spend over £7 billion on a new fairness premium. That will give all disadvantaged two-year-olds an entitlement to 15 hours a week of pre-school education, in addition to the free entitlement that all three and four-year-olds already receive. It also includes a £2.5 billion per year pupil premium to support disadvantaged children.

Those measures, combined with our plans for extra health visitors and a more focused Sure Start, will give children the best possible start in life. That is why we are extending the right to request flexible working to all, helping to shift behaviour away from the traditional nine-to-five model of work, which can act as a barrier to so many people and often does not make sense for many modern businesses, and why we will implement a new system of flexible parental leave, which will end the state-endorsed stereotype of women doing the caring and men earning the money when a couple start a family.

We do not need laws to make choices that protect the most vulnerable. When we have had to make difficult choices about how to deal with the record budget deficit left by Labour, we have done so in a way that protects the most vulnerable. We will increase child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against rises in child poverty; we will increase spending on the NHS and schools in real terms every year; we will lift 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether; and we will protect the lowest-paid public sector workers from the public sector pay freeze.

All those policies were designed by the coalition to protect those most at risk and to give opportunities to those most in need. They are real action, not unnecessary empty gestures. That is why we are scrapping the socio-economic duty. I said during the passage of the Bill that this was a weak measure, that it was gesture politics, and that it would not have achieved anything concrete. The policy would only have been a bureaucratic box to tick—another form to fill in. It would have distracted hard-pressed council staff and other public sector workers away from coming up with the right policies that will make a real difference to people’s chances in life.

We cannot solve a problem as complex as inequality in one weak legal clause, and we cannot make people’s lives better by simply passing a law saying that they should be made better. We believe that real action should be taken to address the root causes of disadvantage and inequality. We do not need empty gestures, and we do not need the socio-economic duty, to do that.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is very disappointing that I had to ask the Minister to come here. I would have expected at least a written ministerial statement or a statement to the House on a decision of this nature.

Dropping the socio-economic duty was not in the coalition agreement. It was a major part of the Equality Act 2010, which Parliament passed only this year. While we know that the Conservatives have never wanted Government to take responsibility for building a more equal society, that is not the view that the hon. Lady herself has previously taken. In fact, despite her words just now, on Second Reading of the Equality Bill she called for more legislation:

“The Government should have made legislative proposals to tackle socio-economic inequality in a Bill of its own”.—[Official Report, 11 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 579.]

Given the importance of narrowing the equality gap, does she still think this?

What proposals will the Minister now bring forward to assess the impact of Government policies on the most disadvantaged? Despite her fine words, is it not true that this Government simply do not care about socio-economic inequality? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has proved that the Government are hitting the poorest hardest. If there is no duty, how will people know about the impact of Government decisions on the most disadvantaged?

With this duty in place, public bodies would have had to think about what they should be doing to improve life chances. We all know about Sure Start; indeed, the Minister referred to it. We know its fantastic work, and how its impact is greatest on the most disadvantaged children. Councils would have had a duty to take that into account if they were thinking of closing children’s centres, but she is now saying that they will not. Does she think that is right?

The hon. Lady said that the duty is bureaucratic, but the truth is that the Government have the power to decide how it is implemented. Did the Government even attempt to draw up a flexible way of introducing it?

The Minister said that we cannot deliver equality by legislation, but the simple truth is that the Government do not believe that they have any responsibility to deliver a fairer society. Of course, legislation does not work like magic, but it is a key way that Government can change things. Road safety legislation does not stop all accidents, but it does make our roads safer and it does save children’s lives. This duty would have helped to make our society fairer, and it would have given poorer people a fair chance, so why is she scrapping it?

[Lynne Featherstone]

After 13 years of a Labour Government who left behind them a more unequal society with a widening gap between rich and poor, the idea that an exceptionally weak clause in an Act that has not been enacted or implemented was major legislation, when it contained only a duty to consider, is everything that is bad about politics. [Interruption.] It has not been implemented.

The public sector equality duty that will be introduced in the spring is the strongest measure possible. It will allow for transparency, and it will allow people to hold the authority to account in their locality. What the Government are doing is far more important than the duty the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentions. We are taking 880,000 lower-paid people out of tax, and spending £7 billion on the fairness premium and £2.5 billion on the pupil premium, which is additional money and the single most important measure for changing children’s life chances.

What is more, let me read to the hon. Lady what the last Government’s social mobility tsar Alan Milburn said:

“The challenges of the future call for a different relationship between the state and the citizen…It will mean…not just passing laws.”

But that was all the Labour party did—pass laws. What we are doing is about outcomes, not ticking boxes.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The most disadvantaged children, like all children, need time with their parents to thrive and prosper. Does the Minister think that flexible parental leave and the right to request flexible working are a more progressive concept than equality by diktat?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Of course, the right for all employees to request flexible working is a hugely important step and extremely progressive. It is about shifting the stigma that has always appertained to women requesting flexible working, and accepting that in whole-life journeys we all have caring responsibilities, including men, who were part of the equation last time I looked.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

If the hon. Lady is so dismissive of legislation, one wonders why she is sitting where she is. May I point out to her that it was legislation that afforded women the right to vote, quite apart from other legislation that has been transformative not only for our society but for societies around the world?

If the hon. Lady is genuinely concerned that children in deprived situations should be taken out of that deprivation, why have her Government introduced a cap on housing benefit that will make thousands of children homeless?

[Lynne Featherstone]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister really cannot go into the subject of housing benefit caps. She can give a reply on equality if she wants, but she cannot talk about that, I am afraid.

[Lynne Featherstone]

That is such a shame, Mr Speaker, but I will restrain myself.

Of course legislation is important, but it must be effective legislation, not gesture legislation.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Is the Minister as surprised as I am to hear what is being said by Opposition Members who, in debates on previous legislation, have argued against equally weighted votes for men and women in equally sized constituencies?

[Lynne Featherstone]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very surprising.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say gently that people are perfectly entitled to vent their views, but questions must relate to the socio-economic duty? That is the matter that we are discussing.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Government’s dilution of the previous Government’s equality legislation is just one of a series of betrayals of women. They failed to undertake a gender impact assessment of the emergency Budget—[Interruption.] Maybe the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice would like to take this seriously, because it is a serious matter. The Government have failed to sign up to new measures to combat human trafficking of women and children, and they have frozen the pay of the lowest-paid public sector workers, whose actual salaries are less than £21,000 and many of whom are women. When exactly will they stop taking measures that have a disproportionately negative impact on women?

[Lynne Featherstone]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the Treasury did an envelope impact assessment on the comprehensive spending review, and each Department will undertake an extensive impact assessment as the spending review plays out. The Government are absolutely committed to equality and fairness—not just saying that we are doing it, but actually doing it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not know what a socio-economic equality duty is, and nor do the people of Wellingborough. May I suggest that it is left-wing tosh and should be scrapped?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s direct approach. I probably would not put it in quite such pejorative terms. If the Government are interested in delivering fairness and equality, that has to be done through measures that actually deliver them, rather than just talking about them.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). In the poorest wards in my constituency, my local authority—Tory-controlled Trafford—has repeatedly under-invested in public services, from addressing health inequalities to sweeping snow from the streets. In the absence of the socio-economic duty, how can my poor constituents be sure that they will not continue to lose out?

[Lynne Featherstone]

All councils up and down the country that are worth their salt will already be considering the socio-economic duty in terms of all the money they spend. That is the point. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but Opposition Members can jump up and down as much as they like—a duty to consider is not action at all.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that I, too, was a member of the Committee that considered the Equalities Bill? Does she agree that the then Minister’s enthusiasm for this duty was utterly unconvincing in Committee? Does she agree that it detracted from the seriousness of the other duties in the Bill and that there was no idea what the impact would be?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I agree. That is the whole point. That is why I called the duty weak and why Lord Lester from the other place called it watery. It would not deliver what it said it would. Other proposals in the Bill were more important, but this duty distracted from their importance.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am rather pleased by what the Minister has said, because it demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that she, like other Liberal Democrats in the Government, is simply a mouthpiece of the Tories.

[Lynne Featherstone]

That is a charming, but inaccurate description.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The Bill’s provisions have been described as “socialism in one clause”. Does the Minister agree that we cannot solve a problem such as inequality in one clause, whether by socialism or any other means?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I agree. Delivering equality and fairness is a serious matter, and the idea that one clause would make a significant difference is wrong, particularly as it was a tick-box exercise. If it had delivered a measured outcome, I am sure we would be implementing it; as it did not, we are not.

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

For decades, disabled people were told that equality would come through education and changing attitudes, but it did not. It was not until the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—an imperfect Act it was, too—that we began to see equality. The Equalities Act 2010 would have done the same for poor people, and it does them and the hon. Lady a disservice when she says that the Government will scrap this duty. That is a mistake.

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Lady makes my point for me. Substantive legislation is extremely important; this was not substantive legislation.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s fixation on socio-economic equality rather than equality of opportunity is the reason why, sadly, during 13 years of Labour, our young people’s chances were determined by how much their parents earned. That brings shame on Opposition Members.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I could not agree more. It is to the shame of the Labour Government that, after 13 years, they left this country more unequal than ever before.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sorry, but it is rather incredible that the Minister has come here to try to defend the indefensible and that she has done it so poorly. Surely, if the legislation is put in place, it is up to the Minister to ensure that it is not simply a tick-box exercise. What message does it send to people on lower incomes in poor communities when the Government do not feel that they are worth legislating for?

[Lynne Featherstone]

It is totally defensible. Listening to Opposition Members, I must say that they are re-enacting what is in the Act: they are talking about things, not delivering them.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s reply, but will she go further? The Government are consulting on related regulations to force up to 27,000 councils, schools, police forces and other bodies annually to audit their work force on age, disability, sexuality, sex changes, religion and other beliefs. Can she explain how, according to the departmental answer I received this week, those requirements will not cost public—

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

The Minister came to the Chamber and said that the duty was “weak” and a “gesture”, and that substantive legislation is required. When will she introduce that legislation?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think the hon. Lady misheard. I did not say that. I said that if we want to make a difference with substantive legislation, we should introduce it. I have already said that the Equality Act 2010 is substantive legislation, but that duty is a little bit of it that is not substantive.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on specific measures. Does she therefore agree that it would be better to enact practical measures such as the right to request flexible working?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Yes, obviously.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

All hon. Members are in a position of immense privilege, and it is generally the case that laws and regulations are made by the privileged and imposed on the disadvantaged. Therefore, how can the Minister argue against a requirement to consider the interests of those in our society who do not have a voice?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Because it is meaningless. If I thought that the requirement would deliver anything, I would implement it. As it does not, I will not.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we heard from the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the pure nanny-state politics that was rejected so decisively by the British people at the last election?

Animal Procedures Committee Annual Report

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

In accordance with section 20(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Committee’s annual report for 2009 has today been laid before the House. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The report includes details of:

A Committee report and Minister’s response on appropriate methods of humane killing for fish.

A Committee report and Minister’s response to the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of severity limits as a way of prospectively assessing suffering and severity.

Committee correspondence on progress with the revision of Directive 86/609.

The Committees programme of work for 2010 onwards.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (Triennial Review)

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

The first triennial review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), “How Fair is Britain?”, has been laid before the House. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).

In Committee and through subsequent correspondence, I have pressed the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), on the consultation that she and her Department undertook when putting the Bill together. However, I have received no answer, so I hope she will tell the House the groups that she consulted, given that the issue did not even feature in the Government’s impact assessment. This House is a tolerant House, and I know that the hon. Lady is a relatively new Minister, but if a mistake has been made, I hope she will have the decency at least to acknowledge that in the House and to apologise to the people affected, who have very little voice. However, there is a vocal group in her Department who have been influential in shaping policy across Whitehall and beyond.

We recognise that the problem is not easy to solve—either here and now on the Floor of the House or more generally—but a small but nevertheless important provision of the Identity Cards Act 2006 was introduced to bring about the existing benefit. We do not necessarily expect a detailed answer from the Minister today, but she has not reassured me, either through correspondence or in Committee, that serious action is under way in government to address the situation. The matter is not so much one for the equalities unit, which she indicated in her last letter was examining the situation, but one for the Identity and Passport Service, which deals with identity issues for the Government as a whole.

We want a real commitment to action today, but all I have heard from the hon. Lady—perhaps she will expand on this during the debate—is the suggestion that the Government are looking to work with international partners to remove gender markers from passports entirely. That proposal could be subject to a huge debate, and I am not sure that we would want that to happen—I think that Government Back Benchers agree. The approach would seem to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would also confuse a lot of people, but even if it was an answer that could be agreed as a way forward, such international negotiations would take a long time, meaning that the proposal is a long-grass solution. We are looking to see a timetable for action and a commitment to action. I once again remind the hon. Lady that she is now a Minister. Whatever her previous record, words are easy. Action may be harder, but action from the Minister is what we are after today.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

As Members know from my comments on a similar amendment in Committee, I very much support initiatives that will advance the rights of transgendered people. In Committee I acknowledged the role of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) in providing a measure in the Identity Cards Act that enabled a transgender person to be issued with two identity cards, one in the gender of birth and another in the gender of their choice.

As hon. Members know, only one of those cards is available for use for travel in Europe. The second card issued in the second identity is available only for use in the UK for identification purposes. The person was required to choose which identity applied to which card at the time of application.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) described to us in detail some of the complex and difficult issues faced by transgender people—I should say people with gender identity issues, because they can be anywhere on the spectrum. It is not simply a case of being one gender or the other. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, the transgendered community can at times be marginalised, difficult to communicate with and difficult to gather together. Her Government’s approach to transgendered people and identity cards did not, however, extend to passports, which it could have done. There was ample opportunity both before and since the identity cards legislation was passed in 2006 for the previous Government to apply the same provisions to passports, but they chose not to do so. There are good reasons for that.

In speaking to the amendment, Opposition Members did not explain why passports did not benefit from the same provisions. I intend to set out briefly some of the issues involved and what we will be doing to seek a consolidated solution on identity and for transgendered people. I will deal in due course with the points raised by the hon. Ladies.

Current passport policy enables a passport to be issued in a person’s acquired gender without a gender recognition certificate, on production of medical evidence indicating that they experience gender dysphoria, or a report to some such effect. A passport in the acquired gender can be a key facilitator in gaining evidence to put before the gender recognition panel to show that a person is living their life in the acquired gender, thus allowing them to get the certificate.

The passport is, of course, an international travel document. It is a good argument that one can get two passports if there is a difficulty with the stamp of a particular country, but there are identity issues associated with passports that are more complex than the same physical image and the same or a similar name appearing. A passport is issued on the basis of nationality and citizenship. It is a secure document that meets strict international standards and enjoys a high international reputation. The standards are agreed and set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

We are not aware of any member state that issues two passports on the basis of transgender, and there are a number of reasons why we do not currently envisage the issuing of two passports—I made some inquiries about that possibility—to the same person but in different identities and with different facial images. There are fairly obvious security and immigration control issues arising from a person travelling to a country in one identity and perhaps leaving in another identity. There is also the personal situation for a transgendered person.

I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that following the Committee sitting I wrote about it on my blog. It was clear—[Interruption.] That is often a good way of communicating with the transgendered community.

[Meg Hillier]

I am amazed that the Minister tells us that she wrote on her blog about the issue, as though that is a formal Government process. I have asked her repeatedly what formal Government consultation took place and her answer is her personal blog. Is this the way the Government intend to continue?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Lady is pushing it. That was not an answer to the formal question. I mentioned my blog to illustrate the point that security issues in relation to travel are not the only consideration. There is also the personal situation of a transgendered person. The responses to that blog post indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) identified in Committee, that—

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

No, I will not give way at the moment. I will finish the point I am making. The responses to the blog indicated that transgender people felt that would make them stand out—it would out them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately, the blog is not a document, so that is not the case.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will answer the formal question from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about consultation. The scrapping of ID cards formed part of the manifesto for the 2010 general election for both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The policy received considerable media coverage and our opposition to ID cards has been in the public domain from the outset. The coalition agreement clearly sets out our aim to scrap ID cards and to destroy the national identity register. Therefore, although a formal consultation was not undertaken, we have been open and transparent in what we intended to do and what we are doing.

It is clear from the messages—Opposition Members may think a website is not a formal place—from the community that transgendered people do not welcome the state emphasising their individual circumstances. That is why we will be engaging with the transgendered community and others to determine what they consider is the best approach and how we can best achieve a suitable outcome to the issue raised by Opposition Members, which I agree is extremely important—how to deal with the state of not quite being one gender or the other, or in process between the two.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

So what the Minister is telling us is that the Government did not carry out an equality impact assessment, and that the substitute for that is correspondence with individuals on her blog. That takes the place of an impact assessment, which is a legal requirement.

[Lynne Featherstone]

No, that is not exactly what I said. The impact assessment for the Bill was published on 4 June 2010 and is available on the website of the Identity and Passport Service. The impact assessment indicates that the policy of scrapping ID cards does not have an impact on statutory equality duties.

As the Minister for Immigration indicated in his letter of 19 July to the Chairs of the Committee considering the Bill, the ID card is just one form of identity and although the policy in respect of issuing two cards to a transgendered person may be considered as innovative, scrapping ID cards would not impact on their ability to access services or to travel in their chosen gender. It ill behoves the Opposition to make light of the transgender community communicating through whichever means it wishes.

We need to be careful that in seeking to extend the rights of the transgendered person when travelling, we do not create the potential for additional difficulties. That is why we intend to work with the transgendered community and others on determining what they consider is the best approach and, in conjunction with the Government Equalities Office, consider how we can move this important issue forward. It is important that we listen to those who are most affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned in Committee, a number of his constituents who would be affected and with whom he has had discussions do not favour the approach suggested by the amendment.

At the same time, through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, we will discuss with our international partners the issue of gender recognition in passports. It is possible for a passport to be issued with an X instead of an M for male and F for female. However, we anticipate that the use of an X may raise more questions than answers. Instead, we will consider other options, including whether it might be possible to remove gender identifiers from passports, and look at any potential consequential security implications of this. We aim to consult groups in the UK this autumn and with the ICAO and others over the coming months.

[Meg Hillier]

I am puzzled that that proposal has come out of leftfield one might say—but perhaps with this coalition, out of rightfield—as a solution. It seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is a very big proposal to suggest that “male” and “female” be removed from a document that 80% of the British public use.

To return to an earlier point, however, the Minister’s ego is quite extraordinary. Her blog and no official consultation seem to be her answer to things, and I worry about the civil service. There are some excellent civil servants in her Department, as I well know, and they have to act on the basis of two political manifestos and a personal, political blog. Within government, there are statutory and other requirements for consultation, but the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to explain that this Government do not take them seriously. They prefer party political routes, with all their imperfections, to what one might reasonably expect, which are proper Government routes.

[Lynne Featherstone]

As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, we are taking formal Government routes, too. Indeed, we will proceed with more formal routes and properly consult a wide range of transgender groups.

The new clause is impractical and fails to recognise its impact on transgendered people. It asks that ID cards that have been issued to transgendered people remain valid until expiry or until another system is in place, but in practice that would mean that only transgendered people would have ID cards. Apart from the huge cost of maintaining the ID infrastructure, whenever that card were used the gender background of the cardholder would be immediately identifiable. Rather than enabling transgendered people to get on with their lives without interference, the proposal would bring them unnecessary and potentially harming attention and focus, and the same problems would arise if transgendered people were issued with a bespoke identification document other than a passport.

This Government are producing the first action plan on transgender equality ever produced by an Administration. Perhaps Opposition Members did not realise the unintended consequences of their new clause, but I recommend that it be withdrawn.

[Julie Hilling]

I am a new Member, and this is the first time that I have been through this process. However, a Bill has been introduced to get rid of previously enacted legislation that served some members of our community well—a small proportion, but it served them well—and I am deeply shocked that, without any formal consultation or proper discussion with that community, we are now saying that we will get rid of it.

[Lynne Featherstone]

We have agreed that it is an important issue and I understand that there was only one case of dual issuing—of issuing two identity cards.

[Julie Hilling]

I was not a Minister and cannot answer that point, but I thought that we were supposed to have impact assessments before we made legislation. The Government are making legislation without them, and I am deeply shocked.

I wish that I were reassured, but I am not sure that I am. I listened to what the Minister said about the need to go forward on the issue and the transgender community being consulted on the solution. I hope that she will undertake that consultation.

Believe me, I recognise that the situation is difficult to resolve. I understand the difficulty of saying, “Let’s not have a gender in the passport” because that would not be a solution; and I understand the difficulty of issuing people two passports. The House should not misunderstand me; I understand that difficulty. However, it is so important for that small group of people that we do not allow our citizens to be humiliated as they go through passport control or people to lose their careers because of the difficulties that they face. On the basis of the Government’s guarantees that they will take the issue forward, take it seriously and work on it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Passport fees for holders of ID cards

(1) This section applies to a person (“P”) who—

(a) held a valid ID card on the day on which this Act was passed, and

(b) paid a fee for the card.

(2) On the first occasion after the passing of this Act on which P applies for a passport, the fee charged for the passport shall be reduced by £30.’.—(Meg Hillier.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Public Expenditure Reductions (Women)

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject, and to clear up once and for all some of the myths surrounding the Budget and its impact on women.

I shall refer first to some of the points that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made, before putting the Government’s case per se. The Library findings were biased in their Budget analysis. The analysis was not robust; it included only selective measures.

[Ms Abbott]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to impugn the integrity and professionalism of servants of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

Impugning integrity is neither desirable nor orderly. Perhaps I did not hear as clearly as the hon. Lady heard, but I shall listen intently. To my knowledge, nothing disorderly has occurred, but the hon. Lady is a long-standing—I will not say old, because she is not old—campaigner, and she has put her view forcefully on the record.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. No integrity was being impugned, but the Library itself notes that its research paper is not a detailed assessment based on individual tax and benefit data and, therefore, remains a rough and ready approximation.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Lady commissioned the kind of detailed assessment, based on tax and benefit information, that she is uniquely placed to do? If she has, will she tell the House what it concluded about the emergency Budget?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I shall certainly come to that in the course of my speech.

Any analysis of tax and welfare changes by gender must make assumptions about how resources are shared within the household, and the Library’s research makes an extreme assumption that no income is shared. It is not robust, and it is based on outdated assumptions about family structures. On the issue of cuts to welfare hitting the poorest hardest, the Government have been clear that the burden of deficit reduction will have to be shared. The reforms that the Government are undertaking do protect the most vulnerable, including children and pensioners, and I shall go into detail about that in a moment.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

There is some confusion about whether the Budget is regressive or progressive. Does the Minister accept that if analysis is done by the size of household budget—expenditure deciles—the Budget is progressive?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Obviously, the Government case is that the Budget is progressive. We are increasing child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting them against poverty.

[Toby Perkins]

If the hon. Lady believes that the Library was biased, does she think that the IFS was also biased when it said that the Budget was clearly regressive?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think that the Institute for Fiscal Studies was inaccurate in what it said. The Government have made it clear that the burden of deficit will have to be shared. At the Budget, the Government took unprecedented steps in publishing details. The Treasury welcomes the innovative approach of the IFS in its revised analysis of the Budget and is open to exploring new ways of assessing the potential impact of Budget measures. However, the IFS states that in order to include previously unmodelled reforms the report makes some strong assumptions that add uncertainty to the analysis.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us which assumptions the IFS has made that are considered unreliable or not valid?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will come to that point later if I can.

I wanted to address the point that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington made about the public sector. Although there are a majority of women in the public sector, the Government have made efforts to support the most vulnerable public sector workers—those earning less than £21,000 a year, who will be exempt from the freeze. That will affect about 1.7 million public sector workers whose salary falls below the threshold—mostly women—who will see a flat pay rise of £250 in both years of the freeze. The Government are aware of the statutory obligations when assessing options for spending reductions.

I shall move on to a more general response to the hon. Lady. Fairness is a key theme, along with freedom and responsibility, and underpins our new Government programme. We see it as even more important during difficult times than in good times, not just because we believe it is the fundamental right of every individual to have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, but because we realise that fairness is the key ingredient to getting the country back on its feet. We cannot afford to continue wasting the talents and skills of women, of ethnic minorities and of disabled people—of all those who have been held back for no reason other than their background. Without fairness we will never achieve economic recovery, let alone full economic growth.

Yes, we have to take some tough decisions to tackle the unprecedented deficit we inherited, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) said, we should not forget that the cuts are Labour’s legacy. Labour doubled the national debt and left us with the biggest deficit in the G20. We have to clean up that situation to get the economy moving. Unless we address the deficit first and foremost, more women will be out of work and more women will suffer the consequences of the recession.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

No, not at the moment.

Fairness is at the heart of all our decisions, so that the most in need are protected. Lord knows, the coalition Government have made extreme efforts to address the issue of protecting the vulnerable. We have spent more than £5 billion to try to equalise. That is why we are refocusing Sure Start, which the hon. Lady mentioned. We are ring-fencing its budget for this year and introducing 4,000 health visitors dedicated to helping the most disadvantaged families. That is why, as was mentioned, we are determined to make work pay by raising the tax threshold, lifting 880,000 of the lowest paid workers out of tax. The majority of them are women, who will come out of income tax each year progressively until the threshold has risen to £10,000. That will aid the lowest paid workers.

That is why we are determined to reform welfare to get people into work, creating a new Work programme to give the unemployed tailored support. It is why, as I said, we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers. It is why we are increasing child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against rises in child poverty. Child poverty rose in the past few years under the Labour Government. [Interruption.] No, the whole point of tax credits for the poorest families is to protect against rises in child poverty. It is precisely why we are getting to grips with the deficit—so that we do not have to keep spending more and more on debt interest, leaving less to deliver the crucial public services that women need and depend on.

We are absolutely committed to a fairer future for women and their families, but the Government are not just about supporting women and their families through the tough times. I forgot to mention the index linking of pensions. I remind the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington that it was the Labour Government who made the derisory 75p pension offer, and who abolished the 10p tax band. I did not hear Labour Members cause uproar about either of those measures—well, the hon. Lady may have mentioned them, but in general terms, those were Labour policies that affected the poorest and most vulnerable, and they definitely hit women hardest.

We want to give people better prospects for a brighter future. We want to create the kind of cultural change that will enable people to escape the vicious cycle of inequality and poverty, so that they can improve the quality of their life and the lives of their family. The hon. Lady should know as well as I do—our constituencies are not dissimilar—that more than 2 million children live in poor housing, in crowded rooms and in squalid conditions. One in five children lives in poverty. I see for myself in my constituency the consequences of that vicious cycle, which people could never get away from because there were no pathways out. That is totally unacceptable. She and I both know about the pressures on housing in areas such as Hackney and Haringey.

We are putting bold new measures in place that will tear down the discriminatory and cultural barriers holding people back. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have set up a childhood and families taskforce to tackle the barriers that prevent a successful family life and happy childhood. One of the main issues that the taskforce will consider is how we can help parents to balance their work and life. The hon. Lady raised the issue of single parents; nine out of 10 single parents who are out of work do not want to live off the state. They want a paid job. They want their independence. The problem is that there are not the flexible jobs out there that could fit with family life.

Many couples and individuals find it enormously difficult to strike the right balance between work and home. Traditional arrangements, in which mothers take the lion’s share of leave, simply do not suit everyone’s needs in the modern world. I totally refute the hon. Lady’s suggestion that the coalition Government are in any way old-fashioned. Our commitment is to moving the agenda forward. That is why we have already committed to looking at a system of shared parental leave and at extending the right to request flexible working to all. The latter, in particular, will tackle the old-fashioned notion that women ought to perform the bulk of caring—

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Lady promised earlier that she would tell the House her assessment of the equality impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

We are making it easier for families to access high-quality, affordable child care. We are extending free nursery care provision to 15 hours a week for three and four-year-olds, and continue to fund early learning and child care for more than 20,000 of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. All those measures make a difference.

We will promote equal pay by making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable, allowing women to shed light on discriminatory pay practices. We are working to end the glass ceiling, which blights so many women’s careers, by promoting diversity on company boards. The Government will lead the way; that is why we have set ourselves the ambitious target that by the end of Parliament, at least half of all new appointees to the boards of public bodies will be women. We will tackle violence against women by introducing a coherent cross-Government strategy.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for omitting to refer to equality impact assessing, which she thought important. I totally agree with Opposition Members: it is important. In fact, it is a legal requirement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. When she plans to bring into force existing powers to curb the activities of private sector wheel-clampers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I announced on 17 August the Government’s intention to ban wheel-clamping and towing on private land.  The ban will be included in the freedom Bill, which is due to be introduced this autumn. Sections 42 and 44 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which provide for the regulation of the vehicle immobilisation industry by way of business licensing, will be repealed.

[Diana R. Johnson]

In Hull, we know that the previous Government’s legislation would have stopped overcharging by wheel-clamping companies, and it was widely consulted on. Why cannot the hon. Lady introduce that provision while she waits for the legislation to go through Parliament to introduce the changes that she wishes to see?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Because all the previous Government’s legislation, despite their very good intentions, would have been complex and expensive to introduce. When we looked again at the results of the consultation, we decided that precisely because of the abuses that take place, banning was the best option. That will be brought forward this autumn, which is not that long to wait.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

When the Minister made her announcement, had she consulted the industry? Bearing in mind that there are some genuine, law-abiding firms that provide an enforcement service where parking abuse takes place, would it not have been better to deal with the cowboy wheel-clampers rather than legitimate businesses? What compensation will legitimate businesses get?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, the industry was consulted, and of course there are probably a number of people in the industry who are not cowboys, but unfortunately, given the vast number that were cowboys, the industry brought the change upon itself. That is why we have had to take this action rather than bring in more and more regulations that would not be enforced. Such regulations would put burdens on the police to enforce something that was never truly enforceable, and abuses would continue.

We will not pay any compensation, but the vast majority of clamping companies are already using ticketing. When the ban comes in, the others will be able to transfer to ticketing if they are any good, and private landowners will be able to protect their property anyway.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

This very week, private wheel-clampers are in operation in my constituency, extorting vast sums of money from my constituents. May I urge the Minister to go further and abolish private wheel-clamping altogether, and hand it over only to local authorities and police forces so that it can be publicly accountable?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that wheel-clamping is being abolished altogether on private land. Local authorities will still carry out wheel-clamping on public land.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

5. What recent steps she has taken to make police forces more accountable to local residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

17. What resources her Department has allocated to enforcement of the law of female genital mutilation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her tireless campaigning on this extremely serious issue.

The Government are committed to developing a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, including female genital mutilation. Legislation alone cannot eliminate the practice, so our resources will be aimed at raising awareness of the law on female genital mutilation, and of the health implications, among communities and front-line practitioners.

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but it was not satisfactory. Since 2003, when my private Member’s Bill tightening legislation on the issue was passed, there have been no prosecutions, although according to health professionals and the police, the practice is increasing in this country. Events such as FGM cutting parties are taking place here. This is a crime against women. When will the Government catch the criminals?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I agree with the right hon. Lady—although I should point out that we came to office only recently, and that 2003 was seven years ago—and I have pursued the question of why no prosecutions have taken place since the passing of the Act in 2003.

There has been a fair amount of progress. A good many investigations are taking place, and each year there is an increase in the number of investigations. There are various reasons for the fact that no cases have proceeded to the courts. I have no doubt that if a case were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS would proceed with it; however, some victims and their families state that the female genital mutilation was carried out before the victims came to the United Kingdom, and some victims are too young to give evidence. Problems may also be caused by diplomatic immunity and community barriers. Although female genital mutilation was banned in Egypt two years ago, nine out of 10 women and children are still being subjected to it. It is on awareness that our resources must be concentrated, but I agree that we should pursue the question of why there have been no prosecutions.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Scientific Procedures on Living Animals

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

The statistics of “Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2009” (HC 317), was laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote office.

This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. Supplementary information with additional tables is also available on the Home Office website.

The statistical report shows an overall decrease of 36,540 (-1%) in the number of procedures started, from 3,656,080 in 2008 to 3,619,540 in 2009. This fall followed six previous annual increases and is the second highest total since the current method of recording was introduced in 1987. A number of factors, such as investment in research and development and strategic funding priorities, determine the overall level of scientific procedures.

The Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, ensures that its provisions are rigorously applied and only authorises work that is scientifically justified and minimises the numbers of animals used and the animal suffering that may be caused.

The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at:

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/statistics/

I am also pleased to inform the House that I have today placed in the Library the annual report of the “Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate” for the year 2009.

Publication of the report honours a commitment given in response to a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in July 2002 that more information should be made available about the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Earlier annual reports focused on the work of the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate. The report for 2009 is the second in which the work of the Animals Scientific Procedures Division licensing and policy teams has also been included.

As in previous years, the report explains what Home Office inspectors do and how they do it and the inspectorate’s role in assessing and advising on applications for personal and project licences and certificates of designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and reporting non-compliance.

The report also explains how the Animals Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate have continued to work towards delivering a better regulation programme to improve regulation of animal experimentation; reports on the successful outcome of the Hampton review of their regulatory performance conducted in 2009; and provides further information on the negotiation of a revised European Directive to replace European Union Directive 86/609/EEC on which the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is based.