Budget: Pre-announcement of Provisions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. As a Treasury team—indeed, as a Government—we are all committed to ensuring that this House is fully respected. That remains at the core of our work. As a Member of this House, I take that very seriously, and so does the Chancellor. Clearly, when we set out certain announcements, we try to provide some specific information about what the Government are seeking to achieve with those measures. We have respected absolutely and in full the stricture that we should not be talking about tax measures or adjustments, and that is something that I can commit we will absolutely continue to do.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Education has been very much missing from the pre-announcements. Given the amount of learning that our children have lost due to covid, I wonder whether the Minister would give us another leak or pre-announcement by letting us know whether the full £15 billion advocated by the Government’s education recovery adviser before he resigned will be allocated to education, and what support he will be giving to the devolved nations on the same topic.

[Mr Clarke]

It is obviously tremendously important that we help our schools to catch up, given the impact of the months of lost learning owing to the pandemic. I have seen that in my constituency, as the hon. Member will have in hers. The Government have committed £3 billion to date to help with education catch-up. The Chancellor will be speaking more about this matter in his statement tomorrow.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I want to confine my remarks today to the impact on disabled people. Disabled people are being let down by this Government’s policies. Research by the Disability Benefits Consortium has found that at some point during the pandemic two thirds of disabled claimants had to go without food, heating or medication, and that almost half reported being unable to meet financial commitments such as rent and household bills. I have seen these people in my constituency office, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who made a powerful speech, has seen them too.

This is one of the direct impacts of the Government’s failure to extend the universal credit uplift to legacy benefits. The Government are now justifying their cut to universal credit on the basis that it was only meant to help with extra costs during the pandemic, but if that was the case, why did they refuse to extend it to disabled people on legacy benefits, who were disproportionately impacted by lockdown and who experienced much higher costs as a result? As I said yesterday in the debate on the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, the initial reason given for not extending the increase to legacy benefits involved technical issues, but how does that stand up, 18 months on? This was a political choice.

Many, but not enough, disabled people work, and for those who do, there is a disability pay gap of 20%, with disabled workers earning on average £2.10 less per hour. This is not surprising, given that disabled people tend to be concentrated in lower-paid and part-time roles. Yesterday, ethnicity pay gap reporting was debated in Westminster Hall, but we also need disability pay gap reporting—a policy already adopted by the Liberal Democrats. I would argue that what gets measured gets attention.

Although this debate is about the devastating impact of the Government’s policies on working people, we must not forget that their policies are leaving almost half of disabled people out of work, with an employment gap of 28%. For all that the Government may claim there are now more disabled people in employment than ever before, there are also simply more people classed as disabled than ever before due to the recent inclusion of those experiencing mental ill health. That is a welcome move, but it changes the statistics.

Hundreds of thousands of people are still kept out of the jobs market through lack of support, inappropriate testing and the fear of sanctions and loss of entitlements if work is attempted but not sustained. The health and disability Green Paper focuses on keeping people in work, not making work more accessible to all, and the Access to Work programme is lengthy, burdensome and simply does not work for small employers—it is a barrier, not a help.

Nearly half of all people in poverty are either disabled or live with someone who is disabled, and they will be disproportionately impacted by the growing squeeze on living standards, whether due to increased energy and fuel prices, cuts or tax rises. This crisis simply cannot continue.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

We heard in the Queen’s Speech that the Government plan to create jobs and support lifetime training, and on the surface these are good intentions. I am not here to argue against employment or education; few, if any, in the Chamber would do so. But what was striking was what was not mentioned in the Government’s legislative agenda, where there remains no support for those who needed it before the pandemic and during it and who are still in need of support now.

Before the pandemic, it was well established that disabled people faced significant barriers relating to the labour market, and we have seen throughout the pandemic that disabled people have been disproportionately impacted, notably through the Government’s continued refusal to create an uplift to legacy benefits in line with the universal credit uplift. We were told it was too complex to do this quickly at the outset of the pandemic. A year on, it is clear that this Government simply have no appetite to do it. Some have benefited financially during the pandemic, and the Government are relying on them to kick-start the economy.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s comments about legacy benefits. This morning at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister told me that what needed to be done would be done and that the arms of the UK state would be put round all those in need. Does she agree that I am correct in saying that that is simply not what has happened?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I agree that the Government seem to have no appetite to do this. She will hear as I go on to talk about the transition to universal credit that I am in agreement with her.

The failure to do this uplift means that an estimated 1.9 million disabled people are missing out on much-needed support. The delays in the managed transition programme to universal credit have also meant that a number of people have inadvertently transitioned. I have raised the case of a constituent of mine in the House before: having volunteered during her nursing studies to work in the NHS, the unintended consequence was the loss of legacy benefits and ineligibility for universal credit. Research by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation has found that there has been an impact on 71% of disabled people’s employment since the start of the pandemic. Not only are disabled people more likely to suffer job loss, but employers are simply more reluctant to employ them, with 42% of those surveyed stating concerns about doing so.

I turn briefly to universal credit again. Claimants whose payments are assessed based on their monthly earnings lose out when their pay dates do not match the Government’s ideal of being paid on a strictly monthly basis. The Secretary of State is likely to respond by saying that after a legal challenge last year the regulations were changed to allow some degree of flexibility, but those changes did nothing to help those on other payment cycles, such as every two weeks or every four weeks, who continue to be incorrectly awarded varying levels of support. Again, I have a constituent who has experienced this difficulty and lost passported local authority benefits as a result and may do so again in future. This system must be amended so that it is suitable for the real world of work, which the Government say they want to support.

I ask where women are in the Government’s plans for jobs and better work. Evidence given to the Select Committee on Women and Equalities on the gendered impact of the pandemic showed that women were more likely to be working in sectors that were completely shut down during lockdown, more likely to be in insecure work and less likely to receive topped-up earnings if furloughed.

One of the first things the Government dropped as a result of the pandemic was gender pay gap reporting; we know that what is measured gets attention, and with this decision the Government highlighted what their priorities were and were not. The Queen’s Speech talks about the creation of green jobs. Women account for less than 25% of the STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—workforce. More needs to be done to encourage greater diversity in our high-value sectors, where the Government want to drive and are expecting growth.

We do not yet know the impact of long covid on employment and whether sufferers will need the same support as many disabled people do now. We do not yet know how the bereavements experienced by so many families will change the number of single parents needing support. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in asking the Government to extend bereavement support to unmarried couples. We do know the devastating impact on the employment of young people and in sectors such as hospitality and tourism, which are so important to constituencies such as mine, but we do not know what the future of those sectors looks like. Finally, what we do know is that what has been promised by the Government in the Queen’s Speech is limited in its vision of both support and growth.

Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The challenge that she is speaking to is the same as the one that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke to with regard to his member of staff. The Bill is not just about pay, but actual cover. As I said earlier, it is the commitment that the current Attorney General will not get an immediate phone call saying, “We know you are on leave, but we need you because of X.” Somebody else will be formally overseeing that role.

It is not by accident that when I was pregnant, I thought about what I wanted to do for my community. It was not about money, but about being conscious that if I had been awake for two or three hours at a time, I probably would not be as useful to my constituents as someone who could focus fully on the job. As I discovered with my first child, those pockets of sleep for two-and-a-half to three hours—the point at which I saw coffee as a medicinal substance to keep going—were in the first few weeks and months after childbirth.

It is absolutely right that we work to protect the family life of any woman giving birth, so that she has that time to bond with her child and to properly take time out, but we cannot do that in this job if there is nobody fulfilling the role that we are doing. It is the same for a local councillor and the same in our Assemblies. That is the challenge that we are facing here, and why it is so important that we assess the impact of this legislation.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making some excellent points. Does she agree that today, what she is asking for is even more crucial? Given social media and emails, Members of Parliament are arguably never off.

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. At this point I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who found herself being abused because she was on maternity leave. She was also abused by members of my own party. I remonstrated with them, pointing out that that was not the progressive approach to take.

My concern about the hon. Member for Stroud, and why the legislation is a missed opportunity, is that she sought to get cover. She was an MP who, like me, tried to get a locum. I had a fantastic locum. In fact, my locum, Kizzy Gardiner, was too good. People in Walthamstow were desperate to keep her, because she was an absolutely fantastic example of why maternity cover matters. Nobody in my constituency batted an eyelid about having someone else not just doing casework, but out there representing our community, working with groups, going into local schools before lockdown happened, and then when the lockdown happened, leading on that role. Watching the hon. Lady being abused and attacked, and watching her also trying to cope with those first few weeks of having a new baby alone, fired my enthusiasm on this. We cannot sit around in this place, watching as other people get those issues right, but failing to take action ourselves.

It is not by accident that the number of times pregnant women end up in this place, or in local government or in the Assemblies, are few and far between. That is one issue that an equalities impact assessment can take a look at. We all talk about wanting to get more diverse people into our politics. Sometimes the barriers to that are blindingly obvious. I know from talking to colleagues in local government just how frustrated they are. I know from talking to colleagues in other devolved Administrations just how frustrated they are.

When we pass legislation in this House, such as this Bill, we cannot be blind to the message that we are sending about how we have determined who is important enough to have that leave. If we think that is not something that should be bestowed as a discretionary pleasure, or as a benefit like a company car, then we also have to recognise the consequences of behaving like that, not just here but in other places as well. If we want to ensure that there is no trade-off between family life and public life for either men or women, we must look at the message we are sending. The honest truth is that this legislation, as it stands, sends a message that a two-tier system is acceptable.

Consider for a moment what would happen were we to look at local government and say, “Well, it’s okay for just cabinet members in local government to have maternity leave”. We would be horrified for young female councillors, or indeed for young men who want to be good fathers and spend time with their children, and want to be supportive partners, yet that is exactly what we are doing here. Frankly, in no other workplace would this be acceptable. If someone came to us in our constituency offices and said, “This is the experience in my workplace”, we would say, “Well, that’s clearly breaching various regulations. We must support you. We must get you trade union representation.” I am very proud of the trade unions, which I know have made representations on this issue already.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said in my speech last October, birth and pregnancy have always been perilous for women. That remains the case, yet we no longer talk about it, and that needs to change. At every opportunity that I get in this place—whether it is a maternity Bill or legislation on employment rights or other women’s rights—I will stand up for women who have lost their children and not talked about it or who feel so much pressure that they end up suffering from post-natal depression, which pushes them to the edge. We can only do this as a society when we back each other up. The Bill sends an important signal to society and women that the contributions we make to this Parliament as female MPs are valued at every stage of our lives. The Bill will give hope to young women who want to go into politics that their contribution, whatever stage in their life it is at, is valuable. It is important that we make a move, and I look forward to working with colleagues to improve conditions for all mums and mums-to-be.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in Committee, having been unable to do so on Second Reading. I start by wishing the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) all the best in their pregnancies. Indeed, it is particularly poignant for me to speak in this debate today because I am currently receiving updates on my stepson’s partner, who is in the early stages of labour; they are on the way to the hospital as we speak. Step-grannyhood awaits. I am not quite prepared for that.

The Bill corrects what is fundamentally a clear unfairness in relation to ministerial appointment legislation. Clearly, as we heard on Second Reading, there is support from all sides of the House for ensuring that Cabinet Ministers can take maternity leave, and rightly so. However, like many Members across the House, I find it worrying that this huge hole in legislation has been spotted only now. Sadly, I think that speaks volumes about this place, the current Government and—dare I say it?—previous Governments, in which my party took a part.

While today we may be updating antiquated rules, the Bill takes us not so much up to the present day as into the 1990s. Of course, a particular element of maternity leave is ensuring that a new mother can physically recover from the birth. I was a police officer for 12 years, and it was critical that we took time off work. That is why all mothers should take at least two weeks off work in the first instance. It was therefore incredibly saddening to hear of the experience of MPs who have been forced to attend this place either immediately prior to giving birth or shortly thereafter.

In 2021, there is wide acceptance of the fact that, no matter how a person is becoming a parent, they should be entitled to leave, whether it is maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave, to give the child that is coming into their family—the child should be at the centre of this—the very best start in life that they can. We should therefore expand the scope of the Bill beyond maternity leave, because that is clearly the direction of travel that we see in society. This must be a legislative first step, and I welcome the Paymaster General’s comments on Second Reading that it is. I look forward to hearing the timetable accordingly.

I worked for a number of different organisations throughout my career before I came into this place. I have seen a variety of policies on parental leave, and I have seen them change over time. In fact, when I was a police officer, they changed between the births of my children; when I had my daughter, I had six months’ leave, and when I had my son, I was able to take longer. However, I would have really struggled financially if it had not been for my mother, who was able to help us cover childcare. There was just no way that, as a family, we could afford the multiple days.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech. May I be the first person to congratulate her on her forthcoming step-grannyhood? I am sure she will be super-gran. One statistic that is very important in this debate is that a third of women get into debt when they take maternity leave. She talks about the financial penalties that she faced. Does she think that one of the things that we would need to look at if we were to have an equalities impact assessment is the different access to maternity leave and the time that people can have, due to the financial consequences for them of taking it because we have such poor maternity leave in this country?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Absolutely; I agree. Continuing on my experience of maternity leave, I had to get my mother to help so that we could afford the childcare, but my husband was a police superintendent at the time of the birth of our son, and his two weeks’ paternity leave operationally did not really happen because there were a number of things going on. It just did not work for us as a family, and he certainly did not get the quality time he deserved.

I empathise with the comments made by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) about the role of fathers. I simply would not be able to serve in this House if it were not for my husband taking the lead at home, although I have warned the children that I am checking Satchel One for progress on online learning on a regular basis.

The global drinks manufacturer that I worked for prior to my election introduced a parental leave policy in early 2019, which means that, regardless of whether it is maternity, paternity or adoption leave, employees are entitled to parental leave equating to six months’ full pay. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that this has been transformative, not just for mothers but for fathers too. The biggest impact, I would argue, has been on men. For instance, the director of the global learning unit that I was part of, a man, took his full parental leave allowance, and that sent a very important message. It meant that many men on the supply and manufacturing side of the business in more operational roles felt empowered to be able to take that same leave. That is incredibly important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

As I said, one of those deciding not to stand is Aileen Campbell, whom I consider a close friend. She was the first Scottish Government Minister to take maternity leave, and Fiona McLeod, an outstanding Minister, was appointed to cover for her. The hon. Lady is talking about the difficulties that Members have in this place. Her former leader, Jo Swinson, was very negatively impacted, because not only was there no proxy voting at that point, but her pairing was shamefully broken, either accidentally or on purpose. That shows the amount of work that still needs to be done in this place despite the points that are being made about the wider consequences for society.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree. It is interesting that the Government are now much more supporting of proxies than they have been. The challenge around the pairing arrangements is not only the risk that they might be broken—that was certainly a very bad experience for Jo Swinson—but that the role that we play in this place is potentially much more visible than it has been in the past through apps such as CommonsVotes. People in our constituencies judge us, and rightly so, on our voting records, and pairing does not give people the opportunity to have their views recorded.

[Stella Creasy]

I have constituents who say, “I turned on the television and I couldn’t see you in the Chamber”, and I say, “Yes, that’s because I was working.” It is important to remember that only a third of what we do as Members of Parliament takes place in this room—there is also all the build-up to legislation, all the casework we do in our communities, and the role we play as an advocate for our localities. When we are considering the cover required, thinking only about what happens in this place and the end point of voting is a missed opportunity. We have to recognise what would happen in our communities if our role there was not played. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not sell ourselves short with the idea that if we disappeared for six months people would not notice?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I do agree. That would not only sell ourselves short but sell short the work done by our staff in our constituencies. Owing to the pandemic, it has been difficult for parliamentarians who came into this House in December 2019 to know what case workloads might normally look like, but I have experienced a very high level over the past year, and my staff have played a key role in relation to that. We need to be there to support our constituents. Constituents have said that they have had a better understanding of the role of MPs and what they can do as a result.

I do not want it to be thought that I do not agree with Cabinet Ministers being entitled to full pay and maternity leave. I absolutely support that; it is entirely right and in keeping with best practice, but it also potentially speaks to huge unfairness, on which other Members have touched. Secretaries of State will receive about £1,300 a week if they receive full maternity pay for six months, but millions of people around the country are eligible only for statutory pay, which after the first six weeks is just £151 a week—close to a 1,000% difference.

On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) spoke eloquently about the deficiencies in maternity pay and allowances. It does seem odd to me for the Government to say, “This is the standard we are going to give to a Cabinet Minister,” and on the other hand say, “The statutory minimum is the standard by which you should treat your employees.” That seems a case of “Do as I say and not as I do.” The organisation that I worked for previously is now giving six months of parental leave, regardless of whether that is maternity, paternity or adoption leave. That is a big organisation.

[Meg Hillier]

So many others have spoken about the real difficulty for so many women out there who do not get a good package of maternity cover. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that as MPs we get a good financial package and that we are paid all the way through? As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) highlighted, we get a good deal in that respect and we must ensure that we recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Again, I agree. We are not only paid on maternity or paternity—if Members choose to take time off—but we do not receive sick pay because we continue to be paid at that time as well. I acknowledge that during this period a number of people in my constituency and across the UK are really struggling because statutory sick pay provisions are nowhere near adequate.

I worked for a global organisation, but I am conscious of the impact of parental leave on small businesses. That is why the statutory support needs to be so much better. We would view it as unacceptable if the Bill said that the Attorney General would receive only basic statutory maternity rights, and yet fundamentally that will be the case for millions of people.

Hon. Members have touched on MPs’ staff and IPSA contracts, where I also have concerns. Many MPs employ staff who have worked for other MPs, especially after the churn of an election—indeed, I did that in January 2020—but to qualify for full maternity pay on an IPSA contract, a staff member needs to have worked for over a year. If staff members change MP, even if they have worked for a long time in Parliament, they effectively start a new employment and are penalised as a result. Although, like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I was pleased to see in my mailbox this morning correspondence from IPSA on this issue, it was specifically related to MPs. I urge IPSA to consider MPs’ staff as part of the review. My first 15 months have certainly taught me that having excellent staff and supporting them is critical to success in this place.

I want to reflect on the work I have done with 50:50 Parliament since my election. I have spoken at a number of its events—obviously enabled by being online during the pandemic—and the common theme in the questions that come from women interested in or considering standing either in this place, at local authority level or, indeed, at the Senedd or at Holyrood are around how to manage family time and find a work-life balance, and having children as part of that. I continue to urge the Paymaster General to regard this Bill as a first legislative step. We have a real opportunity to send out a strong, positive message about diversity in this place, but someone who has served as a Cabinet Minister for less than a year is to receive full maternity pay. As I say, that is right, but we have an issue to address when a staff member who might have worked in Parliament for years would receive only statutory pay.

It is now a month before the Attorney General’s maternity leave, and it is worrying that the Government have only now realised that this is an issue. Obviously, the business changed last week to allow us to debate the Bill today. That tells me that equalities are not at the heart of the Government’s thinking. I always think about an inclusion lens: everything that we consider in this place should be looked at in the light of inclusion and therefore we will see the issues before they are pointed out to us latterly.

[Stella Creasy]

I agree with what the hon. Member is saying. Does she agree that it is concerning that normally an equalities impact assessment would be produced as standard and yet we do not see that because this legislation is being pushed through Parliament at short notice? We are all aware that the Government have had a deadline to work to, but they will have known of that deadline for some months, so there could have been time to do some of the work we are asking for in the amendment, with our better understanding the consequences of the legislation as a result.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I entirely agree. Indeed, earlier I joked that this legislation brings us not into the 21st century, but into the 1990s. When I was a police officer, doing equality impact assessments, whether for operations we were carrying out or for anything else that was planned, was very much part of that. So it is disappointing that we are not seeing that in this place.

That lack of focus on equalities has become apparent over the past year, during the pandemic, and it is really disappointing. The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned my Liberal Democrat colleague Jo Swinson, who worked not only on parental leave but on gender pay gap reporting, which was one of the first business requirements to be jettisoned during the pandemic, and as yet there are no plans for its return.

When we watch the frequent Downing Street press conferences, it is usually a man we see at the lectern. These are potentially disappointing messages that the Government are sending out. In contrast, the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, and I note the recent findings of the Women and Equalities Committee in that regard. Again, the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke powerfully about this earlier. I, too, commend the work of Pregnant Then Screwed and wish them success in their case, but obviously I am saddened that it has got to that stage.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but clearly there is work to be done to get their own house in order when it comes to gender equality, both internally and in relation to the impact of their policies across the country. That is why I was very happy to co-sign new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, which calls for that equalities impact assessment for this legislation, as she described so eloquently.

There has been progress over the past 10 years. Thanks to the efforts of Jo Swinson, we now have shared parental leave, which has been an incredible success, and I know that many people across the country have taken up that opportunity. I know that more businesses and organisations have been improving the amount of fully paid maternity leave on offer, going beyond the statutory levels. That was the case with my previous employer, and indeed in the police service. However, it is very important that, as we consider the Bill, we think about how we can move forward, particularly in relation to covid. Given covid’s impact on businesses, with business margins tight, there is a concern that one of the first things to go will be provision that is above statutory levels. I am very concerned about that. Having had 10 years of progress, we cannot afford to have a lost decade when things go backwards as a result of covid. I therefore urge the Government to carry out an impact assessment on this issue. I hope the Paymaster General will address that point later.

To conclude, the aims of this legislation are very welcome but there is much more to be done. I hope that today’s debate will be the beginning of a conversation on how we modernise parental leave laws, how we encourage business to engage with that, how we recognise family life in 21st-century UK, and how we ensure that the legacy of covid is one of more flexible leave entitlements, rather than a reversion to statutory limits. Ultimately, however, the sadness of today is the Government’s failure to address the issue sooner. Perhaps they could have done that by carrying out an equalities impact assessment sooner. Sadly, that means we are talking today about one woman and the specifics of her case, and that should never have happened.

[Mr Holden]

It is a pleasure to follow North East Fife’s super gran, and to reflect on the views of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) that there will be no equality until fathers are able to step up. I will move on to speak about that a little later. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has dealt with her amendment sensibly and I have a huge amount of sympathy with the points she has made, so I hope that it will be properly addressed by the Minister.

I want to say a little about the equalities impact assessment proposed in new clause 1, because it has raised broader issues about paternity leave, adoption leave and shared parental leave. It is clear from today’s debate that fathers have been a bit of an afterthought. A report published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in December 2020 found that 73% of men feel stigmatised over taking just the two weeks of paternity leave, never mind any longer, and 95% of men said that their workplace culture prevents them from taking extended paternity leave and that really needs to change. In fact, a report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has found that the proportion of fathers taking paternity leave actually fell between 2018 and 2019, from 32% to 31%, and that just 1% of parents take shared parental leave, according to the most recent figures available.

We have a huge leadership role to play here. The Minister indicated on Second Reading that this issue will be rectified later, and I look forward to her re-emphasising that commitment shortly, because at this important stage, messages from the Dispatch Box are necessary to show all of us that fathers are important, and that equality for mothers and fathers will not be achieved until we allow them to step up.

Equitable Life

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate, which was scheduled to take place early last year, but has been much delayed, and I think that delay is at the heart of this whole issue. We now find ourselves in a situation where many of the Equitable Life policyholders have been retired for some time. Sadly, as other Members have alluded to, many have died, particularly the older policyholders in the pre-September 1992 with-profits annuity group, who never received any compensation at all.

The last time that the hon. Member held a debate on this issue was in 2019, and it is a tragedy that each time a debate is held, the number of policyholders who would benefit from the compensation is decreasing. That is simply not right. Time is limited, yet there has likely never been a time when the compensation would make more difference than right now. I know that is the case for my constituents who were Equitable Life policyholders.

The coronavirus pandemic has placed an enormous strain on financial resources for many people, and we have never experienced an economic case like this one. One group who were particularly impacted by the Equitable Life scandal have also been largely left to face the full force of the economic impact of covid without support: small business owners.

I believe there are some common themes between successive Governments’ treatment of Equitable Life policyholders and the provisions and support for the self-employed and small business owners during covid. The first is arbitrariness. My constituents who were policyholders cannot understand why they should be merely given 22.4% compensation; they have been excluded. Secondly, there is the refusal to expand support, justified by reference to the public purse. When the Government have made a commitment to provide support, as they did when they accepted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s findings to compensate victims in full, they must follow through on their word. Thirdly, there is the very large degree of cross-party support. According to the website of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, 282 Members of this place are members of that group. That is nearly a majority of the House, and plaudits for that should go to the determined campaigning of the APPG itself and EMAG.

Non-binding motions have previously been agreed by this House in debates just like this one, calling on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation, yet we find ourselves in the ludicrous position where, despite all that, there still appears to be no willingness from the Treasury to look again at the issue of compensation. How many more debates do we have to hold? How many more motions do we have to pass? How many more Members will have to join the APPG?

As I said earlier, delay is incredibly damaging, so I urge the Government to look again at the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to him making a commitment to providing full compensation. The Government should do so now, because we clearly cannot afford to waste any further time. This compensation has never been more needed. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the importance of the “notwithstanding” clauses and about how unelected people should not seek to overturn democratic decisions. I agree strongly that we have seen attempts to overturn democratic decisions over the past four years, and they have been a stain on the democratic history of our country. We had a vote by the British people that had to be followed through on.

I disagree with my hon. Friend about the clauses, however. Putting them back in will not be viewed as an enormously helpful measure by those negotiating a deal, especially while our Prime Minister is out trying to get a deal that we can accept. Bringing the clauses back in will not be particularly helpful for that.

The Labour party has put forward some suggestions about providing clarity for business. That is a reasonable point because, clearly, we need to provide clarity for business. I come back from a business background, and knowing the environment that one is in helps to facilitate investment decisions. However, I have to say, the Treasury knows that. I spent some time working in the Treasury, and it gets that. It does not need to be told that. It will execute the Bill in as timely a way as it can, providing all the clarity that it can. That does not need to be legislated for.

We have had delays, because people have sought to overturn—ultimately, to negate—a democratic decision. I voted to remain in the referendum, but I immediately understood that it was a vote of the British people, and that the British people are bigger than individual politicians. Only recently have some people been able to work that one out.

The measures in the Bill are about the continuity of trade across all four parts of the UK. That is something that we should all be acutely aware of, because it is bigger than any other trade deal that could possibly be discussed anywhere.

The point in the Bill about creating a more level playing field between the online and the high street worlds of retail is, again, something that I think we should all be able to support easily. Everybody, I am sure, has had representations from retailers in their constituencies about how challenging the past few years have been. Obviously the clock cannot be turned back in any way—this is about embracing the future—but we must make sure that as retailers evolve the offer of our high streets, they are able to do so with a more level playing field. That is the objective we should be seeking in our policy.

I want to see such measures enacted as soon as possible, frankly. We are in uncertain times, and I want us to get to the position in which we can offer business as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible. I will therefore be supporting not the new clauses, but the Bill as it stands.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a shame that the Bill has been rushed through the House so rapidly. Members have had a short amount of time in which to get to grips with a rather technical and lengthy piece of legislation. The small number of amendments tabled today speaks to the incredibly tight time limits that have been put in place. Given the impact of the legislation on businesses operating across Northern Ireland and Great Britain, that concerns me, and it should concern us all.

For me, the Bill speaks to the heart of the many contradictions of Brexit—between what was promised in 2016 and what is being delivered today. We were told that Parliament will take back control, but this Executive, peopled by the same individuals who made those promises, have arguably more contempt for the legislature than any before them. That is summed up by an incredibly depressing piece of legislation, presented a couple of weeks ago, to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which attempts to engineer the first ever return of powers from the legislature to the Executive in our history.

However, the contradictions do not end there. A case in point is clause 6 of this Bill on the uprating of fuel duty for aviation gasoline, which, for me, is a microcosm of the whole Brexit process. The whole point of Brexit was to get our sovereignty back—was it not?—so that we could finally write our own laws rather than follow bureaucratic regulations from Brussels, the sort of stiflingly dull directives with boring names such as EU energy tax directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC). We might have thought that directive was exactly the sort of red tape we would finally cut through in Brexit Britain, and yet the Bill proves that the reality is far removed from the rhetoric, because EU energy tax directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC), which ensures that across the EU a minimum level of tax is applied on a whole type of aircraft fuel, is in this Bill being applied across the whole of the UK.

The explanatory notes rather patriotically inform us that,

“the UK is not bound to comply with the Directive in respect of Great Britain (GB) from 1 January 2021,”

but none the less Great Britain is complying with it anyway. Does that not say a lot about Brexit and the current trade negotiations, where effectively the Government have been toying with the idea of taking maximum tariff pain now in order to allow regulatory divergence that, in all likelihood, is not going to take place?

Turning now to the amendments, I agree with amendments 1 and 2 and new clause 3, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Economic assessments have been conspicuously lacking over the past few months, covid notwithstanding: not only a lack of assessments of the impact of any potential deal with the EU, but the refusal of the Secretary of State for International Trade to tell us whether any of the trade deals she has struck will actually leave us any better off than our current trading relationships. The other conspicuous absentee when it comes to the economic impact of all this is the Chancellor. I find it very surprising that he has said very little about the threat of no deal, during a time when the UK finds itself in the midst of its worst economic crisis.

It is entirely right that we carry out proper economic assessments of all that, not least for Northern Ireland. I remember during the election campaign last year the Prime Minister was caught on camera telling Northern Ireland businesses that,

“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.

In the words of the Foreign Secretary, Northern Ireland has “a cracking deal” because it has access to the EU market. Meanwhile, as we teeter on the edge of no deal, we are told by the Culture Secretary that things “will be choppy”, but that “we can survive”. I am sure those words will be a comfort to many of my constituents.

Finally, I turn to new clause 1 and new clause 2. During the debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill earlier, I spoke about what a disaster the notwithstanding clauses in that legislation were for the future of the UK and elsewhere. I will not repeat myself, because exactly the same applies here; all I ask is for the Minister to give a guarantee that, if there is no deal with the EU, international lawbreaking clauses will not be introduced in this or any future business. We cannot afford to let a no-deal scenario be a proxy for further actions that are hugely damaging to our international reputation. For that to be the UK’s first action once it left the EU would be a truly regrettable matter indeed.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I will speak particularly to new clause 1 and new clause 2 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, this is a matter of sovereignty. I am very keen to explore where sovereignty ends and international law starts, and that is right at the heart of those new clauses, I guess.

We have made reference several times in these debates to section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, where it says that,

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”

If that is the case, and I accept that it is the case in areas of our jurisdiction, is there a need to reiterate it in every piece of legislation, or is it simply a fact that Parliament is sovereign?

My hon. Friend has rightly stated quite clearly that the UK Parliament has a general power to override treaties, but I am very keen to understand how that works in the sphere of international treaties, particularly in terms of trade agreements. As I quoted in my intervention earlier, there was a case between Mexico and the US, settled in 2009, where a US company, Cargill, took the Mexican Government to court on the basis that they had breached the general agreement on tariffs and trade regulations of 1994. The Mexican Government had applied some punitive tariffs on soft drinks coming from the US, produced by Cargill and other companies, which effectively blocked access to the Mexican market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I echo the thanks of the Minister and the Labour and SNP Front-Bench spokespeople, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), as well the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who covered the earlier stages of the Bill on behalf of my party.

I became an MP a year ago and Whip for my party in September. Despite the covid challenges, the Leader of the House was giving Members two weeks’ notice of business up until two weeks ago. This Bill was tabled less than two weeks ago. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where the business for tomorrow was announced today, and where Bills are being given very little time for legislative scrutiny before they are considered by the House. This does not feel like a sovereign Parliament to me.

Despite covid, the Government have had a lot of time to bring forward the necessary legislation ahead of the transition period, whether there is a deal or not. If they felt that the challenge of covid this year was too great, they could have averted the current covid-Brexit collision by extending the transition period. I would ask when the Government realised that the measures in this Bill and, indeed, this week’s Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill were needed. I worry what potential measures the Government may have failed to legislate for, and the extent to which we are prepared for the end of the transition period, deal or no deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Future Relationship with the EU

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I congratulate him on reaching his anniversary, and I thank him for all the work he is doing to represent his constituents’ interests in this matter and many others.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

This afternoon, the Government are finally removing the clause from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that would break international law, arguably after having committed to do so as a concession to secure a deal. If there is a no-deal outcome this weekend, do the Government have any plans to bring forward new measures that break international law, either in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which was introduced this week, or as part of any unknown business?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady will know the reasons why those clauses were in the UKIM Bill. We will not compromise on the integrity of the United Kingdom. The fact that the Prime Minister made that offer shows that we are doing everything we can to be creative and try to ensure we get a preferable outcome. As I say, the Prime Minister has resolved that he will not move on those red lines.

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is not just the issues that I have set out in the UK’s position that should be focusing the minds of the EU’s negotiating team and the Commission; it is also what is in the interests of their member states. Britain’s position—the United Kingdom’s position—is that we want this outcome not just for our own benefit, but for the benefit of all member states, and the businesses and citizens within them.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

According to the Cabinet Office’s leaked reasonable worst-case scenario document, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the supply of medicines and medical devices could be reduced by up to 40%. In the spirit of doing all we can, can the Minister advise us of which products might be affected and whether my constituents, and indeed the constituents of every Member in this place, should start to stockpile them?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, a reasonable worst-case scenario is not a prediction; it is the worst case that we need to prepare for and mitigate for. We thought it was right—as we do across many areas, including covid—to think through those consequences and put those documents in the public domain, and the reasonable worst-case scenario was a document that we published. Whether it is food supplies, medicine or anything related to the covid pandemic, we have put in place mitigations for all sorts of things that could happen and could go wrong. We are not anticipating disruption to those supplies, and the work that we have undertaken includes the stockpiling of certain goods, securing our own freight capacity and many other things.

Black History Month

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this important debate.

I was born and brought up in Greenock, the main town of the constituency of Inverclyde. As a child it was just my home town. My main memory of the school trips to the local James Watt Museum was walking a friend, eyes closed, past the snarling stuffed bear, and certainly little of our colonial history. I never thought twice about the names of some of the streets I walked down—Jamaica Street, Antigua Street, Virginia Street—or what some of the merchants who built some of the larger houses in the town might have traded in.

Hidden in plain sight was another history of the place where I was growing up, because Greenock, like other ports, sadly played its part in the Atlantic slave trade. It was a port where traders carrying goods like iron and guns would depart to west Africa. These goods would be traded for enslaved people who were then transported to the Americas and sold in exchange for goods like sugar. As a child, the only sugar I was aware of in relation to Greenock was the Tate & Lyle refinery, and the wreck of the sugar boat MV Captayannis in the Firth of Clyde —the water was supposed to taste sweet round about it. That sugar was transported to the refineries of Greenock, and the warehouse, the Sugar Shed, still stands to this day.

That sugar, and the rum and tobacco, made some incredibly wealthy, but that wealth was not just kept in the pockets of the traders and their families: it is important that we acknowledge that it enriched all Scots and all parts of the UK. This was recently highlighted by the excellent blog and Twitter account, @WeirdScotland. Much of the philanthropy of the 18th and 19th centuries in Scotland, a lot of which admirably focused on promoting access to education, which we have talked about a lot today, was in fact funded by the slave trade. For example, the Royal Academy in Tain, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), was opened in 1813 by Hugh Rose Ross of Glastullich, a slaver funded by £175,000, in today’s money, from donors in the Caribbean.

It is not just our places or our institutions but our people who have deep-rooted connections to the slave trade. The most famous Greenockian other than Victor Meldrew is James Watt. His father was a slave trader. While Watt did eventually argue for abolition, there is no doubt that he benefited from his father’s wealth, and sold steam engines to plantations in the Caribbean. I highlight Shaun Kavanagh’s excellent piece on Greenock’s role in the slave trade, where he says:

“In Greenock, we live in the shadow of slavery every day.”

How many people walk along the streets of Greenock, Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere and fail to connect the dots—to realise the wealth realised via the slave trade?

Even Scotland’s bard, Robert Burns, in dire financial straits, accepted a job as part of a team of white overseers on a plantation in Jamaica. As Clark McGinn has outlined, being a bookkeeper was as much about managing the assets as the numbers. Burns would have had a daily interface with the truth of slavery, from assisting in purchases through to recording punishments and deaths—and an ambitious young man might seek advancement by volunteering to be more hands on. The publication of Burns’s poems, to instant acclaim, prevented his emigration and that future, but his story demonstrates how slavery permeated every part of Scottish life at that time.

We have to do so much more to educate ourselves about the horrors of the past, not least when, as has been demonstrated during the pandemic, the legacy of the unequal treatment of colour is still very much with us to this day. This year, Black Lives Matter has had a huge impact. In my semi-rural constituency of North East Fife, it has been the issue that my team and I have received the most correspondence about. I received many emails and letters on the murder of George Floyd, on the tragic death of Belly Mujinga and the campaign for justice for her, and on ensuring that black history is taught in our schools.

I have written to the Scottish Government about making sure that our curriculum is inclusive. I am concerned that potentially the diverse approach of the curriculum for excellence means that for some we will not be teaching that curriculum. Like others in this debate, I absolutely support the work of the Black Curriculum campaign and say that we do need a commitment that every child learns at school about Britain’s role in the slave trade.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate. Last week’s Opposition day debate on the furlough scheme demonstrated that there is huge demand in all parts of the House for raising constituents’ cases, so we have a welcome further opportunity to do that today. Since March, we have all been receiving a huge amount of correspondence from constituents whose livelihoods have been affected by the pandemic. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my casework team, who were newly hired just as the pandemic hit and have done a fantastic job in getting up to speed and directing so many constituents to the different, varied and sometimes complex support schemes run by local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.

Across the whole of Fife nearly 30% of all employees were furloughed. That is a huge number and I give credit to the Treasury for its implementation of the scheme. It is an example of how pooling and sharing resources has allowed the prevention of huge job losses. We have already heard today that all this is put in jeopardy if the scheme ends next month unilaterally, and I re-echo the calls that have been made. I cannot stress enough how vital the scheme is to so many businesses in my constituency. But for all the good the furlough has done, the painful reality for a not insignificant minority of people is that they have missed out on the scheme, for reasons that are, in essence, arbitrary. I welcome the recognition of that in the motion.

For some, that reason is just a date. One of my constituents had not been in work, he started a new job on 29 February and the cut-off date meant he was ineligible for the scheme. He was let go from his job and there was no recent employer to rehire him. Another constituent was placed in a similar situation. She was switching employment just as covid-19 hit, and her new employer could not open the business because of the lockdown and so simply could not take her on. The rules of the job retention scheme were adjusted so that old employers could rehire those people caught in limbo, but that was a workaround, not a solution that is an any way meaningful. She was eligible for furlough but was not furloughed because her old employer refused to rehire her so that she could be furloughed, although that would have come at no cost to them. So she has missed out and instead has had to apply for jobseeker’s allowance.

Even for those who were furloughed the scheme has not always been perfect. One constituent, a childcare agency worker on a zero-hours contract, contacted me because the way furlough is calculated has meant that her regular full-time hours are not considered, and she has experienced an incredibly severe drop in earnings. That has meant an incredibly tough few months trying to survive on very little.

Those are three cases, but there are many more. For thousands of people in my constituency, this has been a difficult year. A lot of people who never thought they would be relying on our welfare system are now doing so because they did not meet arbitrary eligibility criteria and slipped through the gaps. It will now be clear to so many people that what is deemed as our “safety net” does not work. As we look to rebuild, I hope we will reflect on our welfare system and on whether it provides the right support for those who need it. I am increasingly convinced that a more substantial, universal safety net has to be the way forward.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sit down at 2.45 pm, I call Jim Shannon.