Oral Answers

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to improve access to maternity care in the south-west.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

Accessibility and choice remain high in the south-west. All but one trust in the region have a minimum of three birth options.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In my local council area, birthing units were closed in 2020. My constituents were promised a new midwife-led unit at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, but three years on it is still not up and running. The Minister will say that it is a funding decision for the local area, but it is an NHS England funding decision and the Government are the paymaster, so when will Bath get its midwifery unit at the RUH?

[Maria Caulfield]

I am very happy to contact the hon. Lady’s local commissioners to find out the answer for her. However, I highlight the fact that the £7.6 million health and wellbeing fund is funding 19 projects across England to reduce health disparities in new mothers and babies. Two of those projects are in the south-west: the Trelya in Cornwall, a community-centred whole-family provision that takes a holistic approach to working with children and their families; and the Splitz Support Service in Wiltshire, which aims to improve community knowledge, access to and engagement with pre-conception and perinatal care. We are investing in the hon. Lady’s region, but if she has a local funding issue I am very happy to speak to her local commissioning group on her behalf.

International Women’s Day

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. We do need to look at how we support women, and that includes female MPs. I am thinking of Rosie Cooper, who simply left the House of Commons because of what she had experienced. She has gone on record as saying that she did not feel safe continuing.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I do not have a huge amount of time, but I will give way a couple more times.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will be very quick. The police are saying that they need to move away from viewing the victim as a credible witness, and move on to the perpetrator. Too often, the perpetrator gets away while the police are investigating the victim.

[Maria Caulfield]

I entirely agree. This is about changing culture as much as about changing the structure of services: we have seen plenty of evidence of that. Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her private Member’s Bill, which will tackle sexual harassment in the workplace. She has done tremendous work on the Bill, and we hope that it will make swift progress in the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

As I set out, this Government in 2017 set out world-leading regulations requiring larger employers to publish their average salaries, but that does not stop other employers from doing the same. We would have to pass new regulations to reduce that threshold and change the Equality Act 2010, but we are seeing all employers wanting to reduce the gender pay gap, and we are leading the way in government, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Work and Pensions having eliminated that gap in their Departments.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

2. What recent assessment the Government have made of the potential merits of making misogyny a hate crime.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely; I will look out for the results of those trials. I am keen that we use evidence-based medicine, and if something has proven to be effective in clinical research, it absolutely needs to be rolled out. An hon. Member touched on the lack of research into eating disorders. The National Institute for Health and Care Research does have funding available, so I would encourage clinicians, researchers and charities that want to undertake research into eating disorders to apply for funding for those trials. We need more research into eating disorders, particularly around men and high-risk groups, such as diabetics.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister respond to the concern raised that Government money had been made available but did not reach the frontline, as a freedom of information request by Beat showed? How do the Government intend to tackle that and ensure that money reaches frontline services?

[Maria Caulfield]

The Government have made huge amounts of funding available, for both mental health and eating disorders. More funding than ever before has gone into those services, but that funding needs to reach the frontline. That speaks to my point about local commissioners: where funding is given to a particular area, commissioners are supposed to use that money to commission services at a local level. If that is not happening in some parts of the country, then I am happy to meet with those commissioners and Members of Parliament to find out why.

We want to ensure that funding is going to the frontline to make the difference that we need it to. We are the first Government to prioritise mental health, and the first to set targets for eating disorder referrals. We are the first Government to set a standard of recruiting 27,000 additional mental health workers. We have started to roll out mental health teams in our schools, and when I spoke to the Royal College of Psychiatrists yesterday, for the first time it said that it had filled all its training posts in the last year.

We are making significant progress, but patients need to feel that. That is the next step. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Bath and the APPG on eating disorders to make sure that is happening on the ground, because, as someone said, it is great to talk about it, but we need to see the impact for patients.

I hope that reassures right hon. and hon. Members about how seriously we take this issue. I look forward to working with everyone across the House to make eating disorders a bigger priority for clinical work. Good progress has been made, but there is a lot more to do.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

As the House is aware, the Government have provided their full support for the Bill throughout its passage. We believe that fundamentally everyone should be able to thrive in the workplace, without fear of harassment or violence, and the Bill helps to ensure that. The Government remain committed to this important piece of legislation and we hope it will continue to garner the strong cross-party support we have seen in its previous stages.

However, as with every new piece of legislation put before the House, we must be alive to any potential unintended consequences of changes in the law and seek to address those, where possible. There are concerns that the extension of protections against workplace harassment set out in the Bill, while entirely necessary, could inadvertently worsen the chilling effect on free speech in the workplace.

At present, under the Equality Act 2010, employers can already be considered vicariously liable for the harassment of an employee in the course of their employment, unless the employer can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from happening. Clause 1 of the Bill extends employer liability to also cover acts of harassment committed by third parties, such as customers or clients, if the employer fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment.

In 2018, the employment tribunal case of Sule v. Shoosmiths found the employer liable for harassment, following an incident when two employees were overheard within earshot of another colleague. There are concerns that such cases may cause some employers to feel under a duty to end or modify such conversations, in order to prove that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

Consequently, as a result of the Bill, it was feared that employers may take unreasonable or drastic measures to avoid liability for harassment of their staff, particularly by third parties, to the extent that they will feel obliged to shut down conversations conducted in their workplaces. That could include pubs seeking to prevent certain topics of discussion on their premises or universities cancelling or not inviting speakers to speak on matters that are considered controversial.

Therefore, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill to clarify to employers what is expected of them under the Bill, and the wider Equality Act 2010. We want the legislation to be clear, but while employers will be expected to take action against workplace harassment, those actions should fall short of prohibiting the conversation of others, subject to certain limitations that I will set out shortly.

The amendment is designed specifically to signal to employers and employment tribunals that in certain harassment cases, where the conduct concerns conversations where the claimant was not a participant, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of opinion in order to avoid liability. Examples of cases where the claimant is not a participant could include overheard conversations or speeches not made directly to the claimant.

In those cases, an employment tribunal will not treat an employer as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment simply because they did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion that formed part of the harassment claim. In other words, the amendment sets a ceiling on what can be considered reasonable steps for an employer. It does not seek to define what reasonable steps employers should take, but carves out one particular step that they are not expected to take.

The amendment will apply to cases of employee-on-employee harassment and cases of third-party harassment, with changes being made to both section 109(4) and section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 through amendments 3 and 4. Amendments 1 and 2 are simply consequential on amendments 3 and 4. However, a number of conditions all need to be met in order to trigger the amendment. Members can see those set out clearly in a list in proposed new subsections (1C) and (4A) in amendments 3 and 4 respectively. I hope Members will have the document to hand, as I will address each of the conditions in turn.

First, the amendments will apply only where the harassment is related to a protected characteristic and has taken place in the course of the claimant’s employment. That means it will not apply to cases of sexual harassment or less favourable treatment because one has either submitted or failed to submit to sexual harassment, or harassment related to sex or gender reassignment, as described in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Secondly, as I have set out above, the harassment must involve a conversation in which the claimant is not a participant or a speech that is not specifically aimed at them. Thirdly, the conversation or speech must contain the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter. That would exclude, for example, opinions on individual employees. Fourthly, the opinion expressed must not be indecent or grossly offensive.

Finally, the harassment must not be intentional. Under the Act, harassment is defined as unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile environment or violating a person’s dignity. The amendment will capture only cases where the harassment was not found to be intentional, as per the definition in section 26(1) of the 2010 Act. These limitations are intended to ensure that employers are not discouraged from taking steps to prevent extreme conduct, such as racial slurs or rape jokes, under the amendment. The Government are clear that such behaviour is not acceptable. The amendment is about protecting legitimate and appropriate workplace discussions, not targeted and grossly offensive remarks, or any form of sexual harassment. I should also be clear that the amendment will not affect the new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, as introduced in clause 2 of this Bill, which remains a key tenet of the Bill, as originally drafted.

To conclude, let me reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill and its important provisions. The employer duty and third-party harassment protections introduced by clauses 1 and 2 deliver against two Government commitments made in our national strategy for tackling violence against women and girls. They have widespread public and stakeholder support, and will ultimately improve working culture across this country. Amendment 1 does not detract from that. It provides what we believe is a necessary clarification of the expectations that this Bill and the wider Equality Act place on employers in relation to workplace harassment. We hope it will assist employers and employment tribunals in the accurate implementation of the new legislation and, in doing so, safeguard our vital right to free speech. The Government greatly welcomes the fact that the Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), has signed her name in support of the amendment. We hope that other Members will agree with our making this change and see the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

This Bill cannot be allowed to fall. It will make a huge difference to the lives of many people in the workplace and will help to provide a cultural shift in attitudes towards appropriate behaviours at work. The Government’s amendment will not impinge on the protections from sexual harassment in the Bill, which will be so important to many women across the country—although of course sexual harassment is not faced only by women. I have also been assured that the amendment should not stop employers prohibiting targeted, indecent or grossly offensive conversations in the workplace, meaning employees will still be protected from third-party workplace harassment.

After taking advice from the Fawcett Society and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I have concluded that I should get behind the Government’s amendments, because the overall aims of the Bill are so important and it is important that it is put into statute. As a Liberal, of course I do not want important political conversation to be shut down in the workplace; people should be free to express an opinion. However, we should be careful to ensure that expressing an opinion does not become a defence for harassment.

I was slightly disappointed that the Government tabled their amendments after Committee had concluded. That led to an enormous rush, and it was quite difficult to consult with everybody, but as I said, I have been assured and have concluded that it is the right way to progress with the Bill, and I support the amendment.

I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the EHRC, which argues that the amendments could be more targeted and limited, and the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, which worries that the amendments risk diluting these changes, which seek to make workplaces safer, fairer and more respectful not just for women but for everybody. I hope the Government will commit to ensuring the Bill’s smooth passage into law, working with all stakeholders who have voiced their concerns.

Abuse and Deaths in Secure Mental Health Units

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive question about the issues we face. He is absolutely right to say that systemic failings were identified, and as I have said, at this stage I have not said no to a public inquiry. We need urgently to address these issues, and ensure that, nationally, the same failings are not happening across the board. My concern about a public inquiry is the time that such inquiries take, and whether a rapid review would be more appropriate. I will make that decision in the coming days once advice has been taken. Nationally, some work is being done. For example, the Care Quality Commission is introducing a new approach into how it undertakes inspections. As with maternity services, one concern I have is that the CQC can do an inspection and rate a service as good, yet soon afterwards incidents are happening. I want to be satisfied that the CQC inspection process and the new approach it is taking will address issues and flag them as quickly as possible.

The National Mental Health Director wrote to every mental health and learning disability trust on 30 September, to ask them urgently to review their services in light of the findings we are seeing. The Secretary of State and I will meet her soon to follow up on that. NHS England is also reviewing everyone with a learning disability or autistic people in long-term segregation mental health in-patient units, because they are extremely vulnerable patients who may not have the ability to speak out when there are problems. I also want to look at whistleblowing, and support staff who want to flag problems but may not feel confident in doing so. We need to look at range of areas, but I very much take my hon. Friend’s points and I will look into the petition urgently today.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Mental health services are overstretched not only in hospitals but in those services that provide support before patients become so ill that they need to go into hospital. What are the Government doing to support the very overstretched early intervention services?

[Maria Caulfield]

As I highlighted to the Father of the House, we are increasing the mental health workforce dramatically, with 27,000 extra mental health workers in the system. We have already increased those numbers this year, compared with last year. We are also providing self-referral mechanisms for patients. For psychological and talking therapies patients can now refer themselves without having to go and see a GP, and more than 1 million patients have taken up that offer. I fully agree with the hon. Lady that early intervention is a key factor, and we are supporting early intervention services so that patients can access them more easily and we have the staff to make that happen.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Let me be clear for my constituents: I do not support fracking and will not vote for it in the future. My constituents’ concerns are clear. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) was right that the Secretary of State gave a commitment that local residents would have a veto over any plans for fracking. I am encouraged by that. The moratorium will therefore stay in Sussex, because I am pretty confident that my residents would not support fracking.

I echo the concerns raised on planning. We see on a daily basis refusals for planning being overturned by the planning inspector. I want reassurance from the Minister that that will not happen in cases involving fracking. This may be an opportunity to look at the role of the planning inspector overall as well as how we can respect wishes locally on fracking.

Let us also be clear that the motion is to agree on the date when there will be a vote on a Bill to ban fracking. The vote today is not on banning fracking. I am amazed at the sheer brass neck of the Opposition, who often criticise the Government for rushing through legislation by having all stages on one day, and yet that is exactly what they propose. They often say, “These issues are too important,” “Too many colleagues want to speak,” and, “There is not enough time to debate amendments,” and yet their motion is for all stages of a Bill in one day. Is that an indication of the Government-in-waiting who they claim to be?

I pointed out to the shadow Secretary of State his hypocrisy: when he was Labour leader, he said to the Labour party conference that there was a role for fracking. However, that bears no resemblance to the brass neck of the Liberal Democrats, who as usual said one thing when they were in government and, now that they are in opposition, say another.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not; there is not enough time. When the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was Energy Secretary, not only did he lift restrictions on fracking, but he voted against a ban on fracking in 2015. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, he was quoted in 2013 as saying:

“There is an awful lot of nonsense talked about fracking. I love shale gas—it is much cleaner than coal and we need more gas. I hope we get loads of it”.

I will say the same thing to my constituents today and tomorrow: I will not support fracking, whether I am a Government Minister or a Back Bencher. I hope that when the matter does come to the Floor of the House, and I will not support fracking when it does, my constituents will see that I stand by every word I say.

NHS Dentistry: Bristol and the South-west

Debate between Maria Caulfield and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate and I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for securing it. I acknowledge many of his points but reassure him that dentistry is an absolute priority for the Government. He said he has previously tried to make contact with Ministers; he has not formally asked me for a meeting but I am happy to meet him should that be of assistance.

Let me touch on two of the main reasons why patients up and down the country currently struggle to see dentists. The first relates to covid. This is not a lame excuse for why there are currently difficulties: dentistry and dental services have gone above and beyond during covid. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is a dentist, will back me up when I say that many dentistry procedures are aerosol-generating, so significant infection-control measures have been in place to protect patients and dentists and their teams.

At the start of the pandemic, when we first went into lockdown, only urgent procedures were allowed, so no routine procedures could be carried out. It was not until 8 June 2020 that infection-control measures allowed the reintroduction of some routine care. Even then, dental practices were able to work at only 20% of normal activity. That has of course had knock-on effects throughout England in respect of patient access to routine care.

Later that year, infection-control measures allowed up to 45% of normal activity, but it was not until last year that that proportion went up to 60%. Just before Christmas, NHS England and the chief dental officer wrote to practices to say that they could go up to 85% of normal activity and 90% of orthodontic activity. They are still not up to 100% of activity so they are literally treading water to try to keep the service going. I pay tribute to all those who have done such significant work to try to deliver services to the patients who have needed them.

Urgent care has been back at pre-pandemic levels since December 2020, so the backlog is in respect of routine services, whether fillings, caps, crowns or routine dental-hygiene work. Covid has significantly contributed to that backlog.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I understand from the dentists I speak to in my Bath constituency that the Government funding provided per patient just covers hygiene, not any of the repairs or dental work the Minister has just mentioned. Can she confirm or deny that?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will come to that in a moment, but let me first conclude on the impact of covid on dental services. The hon. Member for Bristol North West may be reassured to hear that the proportion of adults and children accessing dentists in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire remains higher than the average for access to dentistry in England. It is probably no consolation to his constituents, but access is slightly higher.