Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to my amendments, I very much welcome the Minister’s announcement, as well as his willingness to talk to noble Lords on numerous occasions over the last four days. I also welcome the review he is announcing alongside the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I had already decided to put my support behind the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I prefer the term “woman” but, as he said, I am very happy with the substitution of “mother” for “person”.

I always wanted to see the Bill delivered so that the Minister can get her maternity leave, but I also wanted it to be clear and respectful to women. I am delighted that we have come to this outcome. There is no doubt that the use of the word “person” rather than “woman” or “mother” is not a technical issue that should ever have been decided by parliamentary counsel. It goes right to the heart of the Government’s attitude towards women, their rights and their ability to speak clearly about situations where their sex matters. In recent months we have increasingly heard about the Government’s concerns about free speech in this country. However, when it comes to issues to do with sex and gender, they have been remarkably silent.

I know that many noble Lords have received countless messages, mainly from women, since our debate on Monday—I have had over 200 messages. What comes through is their fear about the hard-won rights of women and their marginalisation in recent years. I was struck by the comments of one senior NHS consultant, who said:

“Language matters and sex-based rights depend upon that language … You are … aware of what happens when women have … tried to express similar concerns”


to those that noble Lords expressed on Monday. She continued:

“What happened to Rosie Duffield was disgusting, but the silence from her colleagues was also chilling and very disturbing.”


Other comments I received were:

“If we can’t speak meaningfully about sex, we will never end sexism, violence against women and girls, or misogyny”,


and:

“I have campaigned for equality across the board all my life and yet now I’m dismissed as a bigot and a transphobe for even trying to raise concerns at all.”


I too find it chilling that those who speak up for women’s rights can find themselves accused of trans hate and subject to horrific abuse, particularly if they are women. That really is a sign of free speech under threat.

At Second Reading, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because she was one of the two speakers who disagreed with the general theme of our debate. She referred to the importance of the language used in legislation remaining inclusive and referred to trans men believing that using the word “woman” excludes them and therefore removes their rights.

As Louise Perry pointed out in this week’s edition of the New Statesman—actually, in relation to the Brighton NHS trust’s adoption of gender-inclusive language—one risk is that if you exclude one group to include another, you impact on their rights. It goes much wider than health, of course. How is erasing women from the language of the law somehow inclusive? Where is the equivalent pressure to change references to men in public health campaigns? Prostate Cancer UK does not come under fire for transphobia for talking about it as a men’s health issue.

It is women’s safety, dignity and inclusion that are compromised when organisations do not feel confident in maintaining the ordinary privacy of separate spaces for changing and washing. It is women’s specialist services, such as rape crisis centres, that are being replaced by mixed-sex services—the latest example being very recently in Brighton, with the contract being withdrawn from Brighton Women’s Aid.

It is women’s specialist services and charities where the staff are afraid to speak up for fear of losing funding. It is the women in the workplace who feel threatened if they speak up for their rights under the Equality Act. It is female academics who are being no-platformed and silenced because they are seen as “the wrong kind of feminist”. It is the women MPs in the other place who get the hate and abuse. That is not inclusion.

I support trans rights, and I support women’s rights. Sometimes, there can be a tension between them. That is why the Equality Act 2010 was so carefully drafted to recognise that, with separate characteristics and principles for reconciling and balancing rights when they come into conflict. The legislation uses the word “woman” not just in terms of defining the protected characteristic of sex, but throughout the Act in all sections related to pregnancy, maternity and lactation.

All institutions have a responsibility to avoid discrimination in relation to each of the nine protected characteristics as laid out in that Act, but it is increasingly common to find in the equality policies of many public bodies that the Equality Act characteristics of “sex” and “gender reassignment” have been replaced by a single word: “gender”. The protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity are often forgotten. How can those organisations then assess how their policies impact on people in relation to sex and gender reassignment, when they collapse the two categories into one?

Furthermore, many are advised by organisations that tell them that even thinking about the possibility of a conflict of rights is transphobic. The result, of course, is that single and separate-sex services, which are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, are coming under increasing attack, not least from the misleading guidance issued by many government bodies, local authorities and the EHRC.

I am very grateful to the Minister. This is a turning point and an important moment, but there is much more to do to protect women’s rights and the other rights enshrined in the Equality Act. I will certainly not move my amendment, but I thank all noble Lords who have given enormous support to this cause; I am very grateful.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I had expected to speak to my Amendment 13 but, in view of what the Minister said, it would be detaining the House unnecessarily to go into a long explanation. I had thought to define the word “person” as either an expectant mother within 12 weeks of the expected week of childbirth or, as a mother, a person who has given birth to a child within the previous four weeks. In view of the Minister's acceptance of the word “mother”, however, I see no further need to proceed with my amendment and will not move it.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am not the only Member of this House to have been lobbied about the wording of this Bill. I entirely approve of its practical purpose, but I too question the use of the word “person”, when “lady”, “woman” or “mother” would be normal usage in relation to maternity issues or pregnancy and childbirth. I understand the desire to avoid any insensitive use in legislation of gender-specific words, but that convention is not inviolate. We do not stop using the word “Lords” to include all who are Members of your Lordships’ House. The Government’s justification in the other place was that

“the convention that we are now operating under … was introduced by Jack Straw in 2007. The intention of the guidance on using gender-neutral language was to avoid demeaning women by implying that only men could undertake certain roles, and that drafting convention has remained.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/21; col. 594.]

Jack Straw used a ministerial Statement, and a future Parliament is not committed to a convention; it is not law. My personal experience of this was a ministerial Statement by Jack Straw when he was Lord Chancellor in 2008, specifically drafted to enable me to withdraw an annulment Motion, which has since been set aside. In December 2013, answering a short debate about wording and grammar in legislation, the much-respected noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, said from the very Dispatch Box in front of the Minister—it is worth repeating in full:

“The guidance also recognises that there must be some flexibility and that there will be some Acts where only gender-specific drafting can be usefully applied. In a case where a person has to be of a particular gender—male or female—gender-neutral drafting does not require drafters to avoid referring to the gender. I think your Lordships would agree that that would be the case for legislation about maternity.”—[Official Report, 12/12/13; col. 1014.]


Does that clear statement not say it all?

Common sense, reflecting the biologically unique role of a mother who bears a child in her womb and brings it to term, says there is no conceivable discourtesy or demeaning of a woman or womanhood by using the correct wording in Clause 1(3). Clearly the Government and the drafters of this sensible Bill have anticipated the unease over the use of the word “person”. The Minister in the other place called the word “jarring”. Why introduce a jarring word, particularly in Clause 1(3), when a totally accurate phrase is to hand to clarify? I thank the Minister for his letter, but I wonder whether he is able to produce any greater defensive explanation than already mentioned, and whether he is prepared to gainsay the words of his ministerial colleague? Espousing the Explanatory Memorandum misses the point.

If Parliament wills it, a convention which may be totally reasonable and sensible in other contexts does not have to be slavishly followed in this Bill. That would make it legally sound. How can there be any grounds for legal challenge in the courts? As drafted, it only invites ridicule of a delusional Parliament, apart from the distress already expressed by many who object to so sensitive a condition as maternity being depersonalised in this way. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation and hope for a reconsideration, but failing that, this should be a matter for debate in Committee.

EU Trade Agreement

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes pertinent points. My view is that both sides should seek to make progress. A lot of work has been done, and there have been obstacles, but we consider some of those artificial, so let us hope that they can be swept out of the way. The Prime Minister made clear again that he would like to agree a deal, but the matter cannot drag on indefinitely.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, what additional steps are the Prime Minister or other Ministers taking or contemplating to persuade individual EU Heads of Government to allow Monsieur Barnier to modify his reportedly fixed positions on a so-called level playing field and fish quotas?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, our duty is to negotiate with the European Union, and that is the proper course that we are taking. I make it a practice at this Dispatch Box to not comment on the internal affairs of the European Union, but the points the noble and gallant Lord raised are pertinent.

EU Exit: End of Transition Period

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this guidance has been developed in consultation with the devolved Administrations and British businesses. Can the EU therefore be confident that goods shipped from, say, Zeebrugge to ports in either England or Scotland, or from Northern Ireland to either country when the protocols are in place, will be subject to identical checks in all regions of the UK—checks that will not be varied by the devolved Administrations?

[Lord True]

My Lords, management of the borders is a reserved matter. The procedures laid out here are intended to apply to all ports. As I said, a specific document referring to the management of trade in Northern Ireland will be published shortly.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, the Government must see the formal publication of the report before considering action. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC has responsibility to exclude material that any Prime Minister considers prejudicial to the continual discharge of the committee’s functions. Therefore, the role any Prime Minister undertakes in examining the report must be carefully done and is an important statutory process.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

Noble Lords will be well aware of the value of this type of informed report. Regardless of any publication date, will its unredacted content be available to those undertaking the 2020 strategic defence and security review?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I cannot comment to the House on the form, nature or exact timing of the publication of the report. I can tell the House that the committee will be constituted shortly.

Terrorism: Public Alert Technology

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

Following up the particular point about data of the individual, bearing in mind the recent arrangements over personal data protection, will it be essential that individuals agree that they may be approached by this reverse 999 system?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No, the system the Government are looking at is not one you would have to opt in to, as with many of the existing systems. You would get messages automatically, which is why I think it raises some of the issues touched on in the previous answer.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I had hoped to have learned from the gracious Speech that the Government will take forward their manifesto undertaking to,

“ensure our Armed Forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job”.

If, as I shall argue that they should, the Government legislate to deal with the problems that have arisen because of the incompatibilities between human rights legislation and the Armed Forces Act, it is essential that whatever curtailment of a service man or woman’s human rights may be enacted is clearly and properly offset by the scale of compensation that will be available to the wounded or to the near relatives of any who are killed. It is as well to remember that thanks to the major advances in life-saving medical treatment, many of those who survive, albeit with life-changing disabilities, would not previously have been saved from death.

What is the key issue? It is the increasing vulnerability of the Armed Forces to legal challenge. When human rights legislation was invoked to bring cases against the MoD, the initial defence was that this legislation could not apply in cases of activity outside the United Kingdom, let alone on operations. This was overturned by the courts, which took the view that because the Armed Forces were always under UK authority, the geographic location was immaterial and human rights legislation could apply.

Cases about the impact of human rights legislation were subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court in 2013. By a majority of four to three, the court took the view that the application of the convention rights—in what it called the “middle ground” between actual close combat with an opponent on the one hand and decisions taken about the provision of suitable equipment, training or other preparations at a higher level on the other—should be judged on the evidence of the particular case. The minority’s disagreement with that finding was that military operations were not judiciable; the work of the Armed Forces should not be impeded by the threat of litigation if things should go wrong. Only this month, the Supreme Court dismissed the case against the MoD involving Iraqi citizens because it was time-expired under Iraqi law, even though the case was heard throughout in England. When the recent Armed Forces Bill was in Committee last March, I moved a probing amendment to seek the Government’s thinking on some sort of time limitation so that historic combat cases against members of the Armed Forces could not be pursued years later after reliable evidence from key witnesses was no longer likely to be available. If it is acceptable for our courts to have regard to a foreign rule of limitation, is there not scope for some similar rule when applied to operational matters for the military?

My second point is how best to reinforce the concept of combat immunity. The courts tend to view combat immunity tightly in a restrictive sense. Legislation, currently in abeyance, for Crown immunity already exists. Some amendment to that legislation may provide a way forward. Whatever statutory provision is contemplated, though, I plead that it should form part of—that is, it should be an amendment to—the Armed Forces Act. That should help to avoid the glaring legislative contradictions between human rights and Armed Forces legislation, and indeed should simplify the task for those who have to work and live by the provisions of the Armed Forces Act.

Three years ago I urged Ministers to work to bring forward legislation in time for the recent quinquennial review of the Armed Forces Act. In spite of prodding, that option was resisted. As the Minister has now indicated to us, the Bill of Rights that was shadowed in the gracious Speech is seen as a possible vehicle, but it is a long way from reaching the statute book. I fear that in spite of some recent successes in dismissing jury claims, the work of the Iraq historic allegations team is set to continue with a plethora of claims, with no help from Parliament.

In November 2013, while still a Back-Bencher, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, most cogently opened an excellent debate on military legal vulnerability. In winding up, he remarked:

“The wave of litigation will continue unabated, with all the consequences alluded to in this debate, unless and until Parliament intervenes. I hope and trust that the Minister will take back to the ministry the concerns expressed in the House and I look forward to a positive response”.—[Official Report, 7/11/13; col. 418.]

Let us hope that with his present responsibilities, the noble Lord is taking heed of his own advice.

Soft Power and Conflict Prevention

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, whose knowledge of these issues is profound.

Given the stress in the debate’s title on non-military means of conflict prevention, I hope that the most reverend Primate, who opened it in a most interesting and thought-provoking way, will not take it amiss if one who has spent his whole professional life in the Armed Forces should presume to contribute. I fully share the vision that it is far better to deal with situations by non-military means and sensible applications of soft power, however defined. I shall allude to its application for deterrence or prevention of conflict rather than to Joseph Nye’s definition of an ability to attract and co-opt others.

When I was studying for my RAF promotion exams more than 60 years ago, I was taught to consider three aspects in dealing with potential adversaries. They were political, economic and military. Non-conflict concepts were alive all those years ago. Today they have been rebranded and brigaded in a contemporary media-savvy vision called soft power. I leave it to others to unwrap the conundrum that so many from overseas wish to live and stay in this country while many others are so militantly averse to all that we stand for and believe in.

I turn to my third heading and the point I wish to make. It may be summed up in that phrase first attributed to Theodore Roosevelt. He wrote in 1900 that you can go far if you:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

Others have coined the phrase, “an iron fist in a velvet glove”. My concern about the values of non-coercive soft power and non-military intervention lies not in their intrinsic worth but in the context in which they are applied.

The debate focuses on conflict prevention, not just winning the hearts and minds of others, so the perceptions of the interlocutors in the exchanges are all-important. The view from their end of the telescope may well not match ours. They may need to be cajoled or won over with economic or political gestures—but will those suffice to ensure a satisfactory outcome? The other side will certainly be weighing up what more it might extract, or what pressures it might face.

I fear that in recent years—I know this from my own experience—we have had harsh lessons, paid for in blood and treasure, about an opposition’s presumptions about the temper of the iron in our national fist. For decades before 1982, we had expended much effort in political-diplomatic exchanges to dissuade the Argentinians over their claim to the Falkland Islands. During the mid-1970s, the Argentinians became more belligerent—so much so that a nuclear-powered submarine was dispatched at short notice to the southern Atlantic as a successful deterrent.

As a then Assistant Chief of Air Staff at the MoD, I looked at the possibility of flying ground reinforcement into the Falklands by Hercules. Regrettably, I had to advise that, while a Hercules transport aircraft could, indeed, just fly into Port Stanley’s short airstrip, insufficient fuel was stored there, let alone runway length, to recover even a single aircraft. The idea of building a new airfield of reasonable size to allow for rapid reinforcement and in-theatre operations was considered, following an in-depth report by Lord Shackleton. However, the cost was sizeable and no department felt that it could be afforded, so it was dismissed as unnecessary. Non-military negotiation should continue and would—it was presumed—prove as adequate as in the past.

In subsequent years, the Argentinians noted that our military commitment to the Falklands was further and further diminished, with the withdrawal of a guard ship and eventually HMS “Endeavour”. By the time the Argentinians invaded in 1982, there were just 40 marines in place and no prospect of rapid reinforcement by air. Only after recapture did we get round to building the airfield at Mount Pleasant and positioning aircraft and radar for deterrence and protection. Soft power on that occasion lacked the deterrent of robust and timely further action, and we paid a dreadful price in lives lost, young individuals scarred for life and tragedy for the families involved.

Moving forward to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf conflict, Saddam Hussein’s presumption was that the reduction in military capability, as the US and Britain sought to benefit from a peace dividend following the end of the Cold War, made it less likely that we would embark on hostile military action. Between August 1990 and February 1991, this perception of his must have been strengthened in spite of sizeable deployment of coalition forces into theatre, as the US, with our active support, sought to find a non-military solution. Nothing budged Hussein until his forces were attacked by air and, finally, by ground forces.

We lost six Tornado aircraft in that conflict, but there were adequate numbers to sustain our operational tempo. Today, there seems little dialogue with ISIL and we and our allies have embarked on a muted application of force. Is it not sobering to realise that our total offensive contribution to this ongoing operation, apart from some UAV sorties, is just six Tornados? Even with the life extension recently given to the Tornado force to remain at three full squadrons for a further year, there is no continuous capability for an air combat force to remain deployed globally, as a deterrent or for use, as far and as wide as it has been. Other tasks may become more pressing.

I have chosen the Tornado force to illustrate my point, but similar analogies may be made for naval and Army forces. All three services are shadows of their former selves of even a couple of decades ago. The Air Force that I was privileged to lead in the mid-1980s was 100,000 strong. Today, it is down to close on 30,000 and force numbers have declined in proportion. Does this ORBAT any longer have a hope of being the big stick or iron fist that history teaches us is an essential long-stop to soft power and other non-military engagement with recalcitrant opponents?

I repeat that of course I welcome all steps—any steps—that can resolve difficulties between nations without recourse to war and bloodshed. However, these have far greater hope of success if the stick and fist are first class and sizeable enough to carry weight in the minds of those we seek to win over. We deceive ourselves if we believe that today’s force levels are still adequate to foster and promote the success of soft power in conflict prevention. President Putin’s annexation of Crimea, so robustly decried by our Government and many in the West as unacceptable, is now a fait accompli. The strategic prize for Russia must surely outweigh any or all inconvenience caused to its economy, or even individuals, by sanctions, which are the most that NATO and the EU seem capable, or willing, to call upon. The labours of those who diligently seek to solve problems with soft power might be more productive if those who bear responsibility for defence consider the adequacy of the available strengths rather than assume that all is well because we input some now very small amount of GDP on defence capability.

I applaud the efforts and enthusiasm of the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords. I hope that more will be done for the Armed Forces to give him and others the deterrent muscle of “big stick” and well tempered “iron fist” to promote success—the success that a combination of hard and soft power, or “smart power”, may bring. Hard power, it has been said, begets soft power.

Afghanistan

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, at the Tokyo conference in 2012, a number of states and international organisations made pledges amounting to £16 billion for reconstruction in Afghanistan. On 3 and 4 December we will jointly host a conference in London with the Afghan Government, at which a number of other Governments will be invited to recommit themselves to the development of Afghanistan as a collective effort over the next few years.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, a considerable number of the available Tornado GR4s are still deployed in Afghanistan. Now that combat operations have ceased, what future plans do the Government have for that force in Afghanistan?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will have to write to the noble and gallant Lord about that. I am not entirely up to date on where all the Tornados are.

Armed Forces: Accommodation

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, does the Minister recall this quotation:

“Poor accommodation is an issue which is creating difficulties in retaining personnel in the armed forces”?

That was Dr Liam Fox as shadow Defence Secretary in 2007. Has the Defence Secretary changed his mind?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I assure the House that the Defence Secretary has not changed his mind, and I repeat: we should pay tribute to the previous Administration’s considerable efforts in recent years to upgrade service accommodation, which are continuing. A further 900 houses have already been upgraded since this Administration took office. We are very conscious of the importance of this programme. Perhaps I should also mention that alongside it, a substantial programme is to be undertaken in the next five years of service accommodation adjustment to accommodate troops who will be returning from Germany. That is not part of this pause.