Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is a doughty and persistent campaigner, which Members have to be to get across what they want—my seven years as a Back Bencher taught me that. I responded to a letter of hers on this matter very recently. Her campaign is holding a drop-in session from 11 am to 1 pm today, and I am sure that anybody who wants to take part is welcome.

As the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central set out, these simple clauses give the Secretary of State a new power to make regulations on redundancy during pregnancy, and extend existing powers to make regulations during or after a relevant period of leave. The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations mean that before making an employee who is on maternity leave redundant, employers have an obligation to offer them—not just invite them to apply for—a suitable alternative vacancy when one is available. Our response to the 2019 consultation on pregnancy and maternity discrimination made it clear that we will use the new powers in the Bill to extend MAPLE protection into pregnancy and for a period after return to work.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I intervene only to make a point I made on Second Reading, which was that perhaps we could insist in the Bill that employers outline to employees who have become pregnant their rights. They could give them a piece of paper that tells them what they should do. That would make it absolutely plain.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She makes a helpful contribution. As she and other right hon. and hon. Members will understand, including the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, there are different views about this matter. In the end we have arrived at a reasonable and sensible compromise. The debate on that particular issue will continue, and if the Bill is successful there will be a further opportunity to debate such matters in Committee.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. I have never heard of the German proposals before, and I really like them. I think they are flipping good, if I can say that, and it makes sense that we go some of the way down that road.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I had not expected us to get into a debate today about what is going on in Germany, but he raises a valuable point. It is always important to look at how things work in different countries. The German model has been looked at closely, and a number of campaign organisations are strongly supportive of it. I have had those conversations with Ministers and a range of organisations, and there is merit in the German model, which, for the record, is my preference. I understand, however, the concerns that have been raised, and I think the Bill has currently got to the right place. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support today.

We are now six years on from the shocking findings by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the industrial scale discrimination that expectant and new mums face at work. This is a timely opportunity to make progress. I confess that I was taken aback by the level of discrimination faced by pregnant women in the workplace. Perhaps I had made an assumption that such practices had been consigned to history, but that is not the case, and as I said, 54,000 women are directly affected as a consequence, with the wider impact that will have on their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I think all of us can completely agree that that is not the kind of society in which we want to live. We should value people who do the right thing and step forward to enter the workplace. Collectively, we all have a responsibility to put in place legislation that will provide protections to ensure that people are not treated in that way.

To go back to the hon. Member’s previous point, there is a big responsibility on business. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of the business community are sensible, decent employers. They want to do the right thing. As he said, it is in their interest to do the right thing, value their staff and invest in their workforce—not least a cohort of the workforce that, in every respect, are effective and efficient, to go back to the point about productivity. We have an opportunity to take a step forward today. As I said, this is not a panacea. There is a debate about whether we should go further and be more ambitious, but this is a good step in the right direction and I very much hope that we take it.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—my friend—for giving way. It seems to me that in the Bill Committee, we could put in a clause that makes it incumbent on employers to give a sheet of paper to women who are packing up their job because they are pregnant stating what their rights are. That might already be in the Bill—I do not know—but it seems to make sense and that would make it clear to women leaving their jobs exactly what their rights are.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is an excellent suggestion. The right hon. Member mentioned the Bill Committee. If the Bill is successful in its passage today, we will look for Members to sit on the Committee. I have a form here that I can perhaps give to him—I would be incredibly grateful. He will remember the expression, “Never volunteer for anything,” even better than I do, but in good faith he may have just volunteered to serve on the Bill Committee. Fingers crossed and touch wood, if we get to that point I will be knocking on his door with the form.

I was making the point about employment tribunals and about Natasha. When she finally felt able to take her employer to a tribunal, she was told—[Interruption.] That is the office of the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) calling to make sure they have the date of the Bill Committee in his diary—[Laughter.] Natasha was told that it was too late and that she should have applied within the three-month window. Extending the time limit to bring forward a claim to six months was supported by every single stakeholder I engaged with. That is an important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am surprised to be called so early; it is unusual. I am slightly off piste, to be honest, but willingly so because this issue is so important.

Every single person on this planet is equal, but it is clear, from what we have heard and what we know, that in work women are not as equal as men. That is wrong. A woman who takes time off work because she is having a baby will take a minimum of six, nine or 12 months, perhaps longer. It is incredibly important that she does that—we all know that. Women do a huge duty to society. I do not consider women to be equal to men—please, do not just quote that but listen to the second half—I think that women are at a higher level than men. I know they will cut what I say, but it is absolutely true. Without what they do, we would have no future. We should recognise that, and so should employers.

[Lee Anderson]

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that men play an important role in the future of mankind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I knew I would get that sort of response from my hon. Friend. He is right that we momentarily play a part. My goodness, am I going to be in real trouble? I hope not, because I am totally on the side of women.

This is a really good Bill, and I would like it to go further. The Government support it, so as a big, loyal follower of the Government, I support it, too. It is right. This is a good Bill because it fundamentally improves protection from redundancy for pregnant women and other people with family reasons for not working. It is simply unfair for women to be sacked or to suffer because they have been away from their job to have a baby. It is just plain wrong.

I love the idea that this Bill extends beyond the period when leave has been taken. I recall that the 2019 Queen’s Speech said we would extend protections against maternity discrimination. It has taken three years, but I am sure it will now happen. I have not heard anyone suggest otherwise. The Bill will pass Second Reading and go into Committee. Yes, I will sit on the Committee, but I ask my friend, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), to make sure it is short, because I have little concentration. I call the hon. Gentleman my friend because we were in the military together. We are apparently not allowed to be friends in this place, but we are.

The Bill will apply to everybody on maternity leave, shared parental leave and adoption leave. There is good evidence, as has been explained, that the Bill is absolutely necessary. In 2015, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that one in 10 women—10%—had been fired or treated badly in the workplace, resulting in them giving up their job. This is wrong.

Since 2015, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Women and Equalities Committee and campaign groups such as Pregnant Then Screwed—I was a bit worried when I read that for the first time, and I wondered whether somebody had made a spello, but it is accurate and I now understand what it means—have investigated new mothers facing redundancy. The EHRC found that some 54,000 new mothers may be forced out of their job in Britain each year. That is appalling. It is so wrong. A survey of new mothers by Pregnant Then Screwed—I am worried about saying such words, but that is the name—found that 30% believed they had experienced discrimination from their employer during the pandemic.

[Lee Anderson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

Of course I give way. I am about the be castigated again.

[Lee Anderson]

My right hon. Friend is giving a masterful and interesting speech. Does he agree that, although this discrimination is abhorrent, it also happens before pregnancy and, sometimes, during the recruitment process? Employers will look unfavourably on women of a certain age for fear that they may fall pregnant and cost them in the short term. As I said before, that is a very narrow-minded view and these ladies can probably offer more in the workplace than some of us men.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and I totally agree. I have already explained that I believe women are at a higher level than men, so they do everything much better. They can certainly multitask, I gather. I certainly cannot. I am not trying to be too flippant, because this is a serious matter.

I gather recent research has found that 15% of pregnant ladies in ethnic minorities experience even more discrimination, which is utterly wrong. The figure for lesbian and bisexual women is 15% as well. This is fundamentally wrong, and we must correct it: that is what we are here to do. A great many Conservative colleagues are here to support you—I mean the hon. Member for Barnsley Central. I would have been castigated for that, wouldn’t I, Mr Deputy Speaker? A few minutes ago you were wearing a dress, Mr Deputy Speaker! [Laughter.] Congratulations! This is woke him/her, is it? Oh my goodness, I’ve really had it now.

Well done the Women and Equalities Committee for further investigation into these findings. A good friend of mine suggested that I might sit on the Committee one day, although I am not sure whether people would want that to happen. In its report, the Committee recommended that enhanced protections should be introduced applying not just throughout pregnancy but, importantly, for six months thereafter.

It is often difficult enough for women to take all their parental responsibilities seriously. Let me clarify that: they do take these matters seriously, but it is difficult for them to achieve everything they want to achieve when they also have to work. Childcare costs are enormous. How many times have all of us sat in our constituency surgeries and heard women say, “I want to go out to work, but all I am doing when I am working is covering my childcare costs”? I am afraid we have a problem with the cost of childcare costs as well, but that, I suspect, is a subject for another debate. It is hardly easy for a woman anyway, looking after children and getting them to school, often as a single parent, and then trying to work as well. Balancing all that is pretty awkward. We in the House therefore have a duty to make it as easy as possible for women to balance their civic duty of bringing children up with working. I do not mean that they have to work, of course.

Let me now turn to the Bill’s two clauses. As we heard from the hon. Member for Barnsley Central—my hon. Friend—the first extends the Secretary of State’s existing powers so that additional protection can more easily be applied to an individual who has taken pregnancy leave, and the second seeks to improve the protections. Both those clauses make sense. The Bill makes sense. The Bill is why we are here. It is a very important Bill, and we have to get it through. I fully support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend may not have had children yet; I have had six. One point that has not been talked about today is that when a woman is pregnant, it is often traumatic and frightening for her. It is often not an easy time. Some people may find it joyous—it is joyous, of course—but it is difficult for some women. If we put that on top of the fact that they might lose their jobs, it is just another pressure. I make that point because it is valid.

[Shaun Bailey]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that powerful intervention, to which I cannot add any more. He is right that it can be a traumatic experience. The Bill also seeks to address when someone has a miscarriage or loses a baby, which is a horrific time in the lives of both parents. It is important to consider how we support someone who has gone through that, particularly a woman, who feels that loss acutely and painfully. Unless someone has gone through that experience, I do not think that they can truly understand the pain that is felt as a result.

Again, talking about what this Bill does, its broader messages and what it seeks to achieve in supporting people at the most vulnerable points in their lives is absolutely key. Surely it is incumbent on all of us in this House to support people when they most need it and at the times in their lives when they are most vulnerable, particularly during pregnancy. That is the point in their life when a person is most exposed to both physical and mental challenges, as well as in other ways.

I am conscious that I should conclude my comments, but I really want to say that I am so proud to be able to support this Bill. I really do commend the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central for the work he has done on it. What this Bill seeks to do, as was articulated so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, is to set what is currently seen as the exceptional standard as the norm, and that is right because it is what we should be doing.

The Bill will ensure that we do not lose brilliant people from our workforce. We should enable everyone who has the passion and drive and who wants to contribute to do so. We should back up the mantra we have been churning out from this House for decades about how we want to encourage the family base and encourage people to have families. Families are the core of society, and we should follow that up with tangible action. This place is very good at talking, but we need to follow through with tangible legislation. We must have the tangible means by which we can follow up on our good sentiments, and that is one thing this Bill does.

The Bill also ensures that in situations a bit like my mum’s and other people’s, when single mums are trying to get on with life and secure a life for their kids, whether or not they have been born, they can do so without worrying about how they are going to do it. They, too, can contribute, because this is surely about lifting people up, is it not? If they fear that they are going to lose their job or that they cannot progress up the ladder because they have had a child, that just should not be happening.

Finally, the Bill will ensure that, at what for many is the most exciting time of their lives, but also a time when they are at their most vulnerable and most exposed, people get the support that we should rightly be giving them. I fully endorse the aims of the Bill, and if the hon. Member for Barnsley Central is looking for someone to serve on his Bill Committee, I would be honoured to do so, because this is absolutely one of the reasons why I came into this place. [Interruption.] I can see he is already putting my name down—brilliant—so I expect the email in due course.

I just think back to the reason why I came into the place. I always say, whenever I am asked, that it is for people like my mum. With this Bill today, I think of her and what she went through as a single mum bringing me up and enabling me to get here. I will always owe her for that, because I would not be here had she not made the sacrifices that she had to make to get me—a lad from a council house who was told he probably would not amount to anything—to be a Member of Parliament. If we can ensure we get a few more young people like me from such backgrounds into this place by agreeing to the provisions of this Bill today, as far as I am concerned that is exactly why we are all here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, and I feel privileged to speak in this debate and support the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I am proud that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who—they may not accept it—are feminists, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is important to recognise that this should not be about women’s rights; this is about wanting to ensure that our country supports all its employees, male or female. It is sad that in the 21st century we still have to introduce Bills such as this to give women protection in the workplace.

The Bill provides long overdue guarantees to pregnant women that they will not be dismissed during or shortly after pregnancy. It is also important to remember—we have not yet touched on this—that the Bill contains protection for those adopting children. A number of my gay friends have adopted children over recent years, and they will welcome this progressive Bill. This is not just about women, it is also about gay couples who are involved in adoption or a pregnancy, and it is important to highlight that—[Interruption.] I thank my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he would like to intervene.

[Bob Stewart]

I was just pointing out that a lot of my friends, male and female and married, also want to adopt. They have that right too, which is great.

[Nickie Aiken]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about adoption, whether by a gay or heterosexual couple. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central is right to say that women should not have to choose between a career and raising a family, but unfortunately, far too many women are forced to make that choice. In 2016, a survey commissioned by BEIS found that three in four women experienced some form of pregnancy or maternity discrimination. As we have heard, 54,000 pregnant women a year are dismissed from their jobs. That eye-watering statistic should shame this country, and I hope that if passed, the Bill will go towards rectifying that shameful record. It is wholly unacceptable, but nevertheless we see that story across the board.

In my constituency I hear the same stories again and again from women who are trying to balance family planning with their career. As I said in an earlier intervention, I am sponsoring my own private Member’s Bill to secure employment rights for those undertaking fertility treatment. That Bill seeks similar outcomes to those sought by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central. After all, this is 2022 not 1922, and people need to feel comfortable to choose to have a child—or more than one child—whether that child is conceived naturally or through fertility treatment, and no matter where they work and without fear of their career being negatively impacted.

That fear is all too familiar for women across the country. There are women who are trying to make a career, but who are conscious that they have a limited time in which they can have a child. As I said earlier, when I had my first child aged 35, the average age of the woman in the hospital I was in was 39. Women now have careers and want to establish themselves in their 20s and into their 30s, and they then try to have a child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not right; men do not face these questions and this discrimination, and we forget that. It is, unfortunately, still a man’s world. I sometimes get slated for saying that, but it is—let us be honest. There are so many barriers for women in the workplace, in life and in general, and this is just another barrier that they have to come up against time and again. It is quite shocking that we are having this conversation in 2022, but we are here having it, and hopefully the Bill will be passed—I am sure it will—and will give the extra protection that women in this country need.

I just hope that there are plenty of women listening to this today who will know that we are on their side and are going to make changes, and can have that confidence. We have talked about women being sacked from the workplace because they are pregnant or may get pregnant, and the skilled workforce that employers lose through that. They are not only losing skilled workers and their potential to go on to be brilliant employees, but saying to the marketplace out there, “We don’t want you. You’re a woman, and we don’t want you working here.” How wrong is that, when 50% of the population in this country are women? I think we are getting close to that in this place—we are getting more and more women here—and rightly so. Why should women not work here and why should they not do all the top jobs? It is an absolute disgrace.

The most important job that women do on this earth is to have children. Without them, I would not be here. They have children and they do a fantastic job, but to balance that with having a career, running a home, being married or having a partner, or whatever they have to multitask. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said he is not very good at multitasking—I can vouch for that because I have been in his office quite a few times this week, and he cannot multitask at all. Women play an incredibly important part in society.

[Bob Stewart]

I had to intervene on my very good friend, but I must say that I think I am seriously lucky to be a man. Frankly, I do not have to put up with all the rubbish that women sometimes have to go through, so I am very glad, and I think my hon. Friend would probably say the same, would he not?

[Lee Anderson]

I completely agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend, who makes a really good point.

We know this happens: the majority of single parents in this country are ladies—women—and the hurdles they have to go over on a daily basis just to get by in life are hard enough. As a Government and as a society, we are trying to get more people back into the workplace. We have a skills shortage and there are lots of jobs in the economy—there are over 1 million vacancies, and we need to plug that gap—but what are we doing in such situations? We are putting up obstacles and barriers, as we sometimes do to disabled people, and making it so difficult for them to get back into the workplace.

We are missing a trick, and it is costing the economy. It is also costing employers, because if they are not recruiting or keeping in the workplace a lady who has had children or is on maternity leave, they are missing a trick. They are not upskilling that person, and if they are not retaining that person, they have to go out and recruit somebody else and spend thousands and thousands of pounds getting them up to speed when that asset—that employee—is already there. We need to stop missing that trick, use a little bit more common sense in the workplace, get behind our brilliant women in the UK, because they are brilliant, and give them all the support they need.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

I believe that we do not have a choice. We must look at every form of renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen to reach net zero. We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. Equally, in looking at how to decarbonise, there are no good and bad actors; the most important thing is outcomes. We have a target set for 2050 but cannot ignore that we wish to reduce our carbon emissions now. I therefore welcome any technology that can achieve that sooner rather than later.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows a lot about these things. What percentage of our energy does he estimate will be produced by nuclear power stations by 2050?

[Chris Skidmore]

That depends on the potential for innovation for the future. We have an energy crunch coming down the line with perhaps just a single nuclear plant open by 2030 and, at the same time, we will move from existing nuclear fission reactors through to small modular nuclear reactors, advanced modular nuclear reactors and, ultimately, fusion.

As science Minister, I assigned Government investment for the spherical tokamak for energy production units. We need certainty and a clear strategy for where the nuclear pathway is going beyond the existing reactors and to front-load that investment now. I will come to why the RAB model is so important as it allows that front-loading.

As I mentioned, nuclear power has resulted in an annual saving of 22.7 million tonnes of CO₂, the equivalent of taking one in three cars off the road. The Government’s proposal to adopt the regulated asset base funding model for nuclear power is bold and ambitious, but it is also needed. The beauty of the funding model is that it inherently encourages a wider range of private investment in new nuclear projects, reducing the UK’s reliance on overseas funding.

As it stands, developers are forced to provide the finances for construction up front and begin receiving revenue only when the station starts generating electricity. Even in the best of times for energy markets, which we certainly are not in now, that lack of certainty diminishes how investable nuclear power projects are. As we have seen, sadly, with the nuclear projects at Moorside and Wylfa, our current funding model is simply not fit for purpose; 5.8 GW of nuclear energy, just over half our current supply of nuclear power, was lost directly because funding could not be secured. Those locations have both been described as highly desirable sites for new nuclear power plants, but even after the Government offered to take the equity, provide all the debt finance and back a revenue-stabilising mechanism, private investors still had to walk away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

That is such an important point. I agree entirely that we already have the larger-scale nuclear reactors and the established technology. It is so important that we look at SMRs and AMRs, and at the leadership that can be provided in a consortium by Rolls-Royce. If we get in early and develop that technology in the United Kingdom, we can export it around the world and create more wealth in the United Kingdom from this incredibly important source of energy and the power stations.

[Bob Stewart]

As I listen to discussions on the expansion of nuclear capability in this country, it slightly worries me that we have not talked about the security of those assets. My worry is that they could be interfered with by some foreign power in a cyber-attack. That must be part of all the planning for these places.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am sorry if the hon. Member feels that I have been here for years. I think I have been here for only 18 or 19 months, but it does seem like years, so perhaps I am boring for Britain in talking about workers’ rights and standing up for those rights. None the less, we are acting on this, and I will develop my speech to show exactly how we are doing so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I take another message away from this debate. I take away the message that the Government understand that there is a real problem, and are going to get it fixed as soon as possible.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard about reaching for primary legislation. We have had a very reasonable debate which, as I have said, was opened in a very reasonable way by the hon. Member for Brent North. We heard a forensic response from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who brought her expertise to the debate with such élan and showed how we can keep the flexibility of employers to be able to restructure and reconsider their future, while making sure that we can cover the most egregious cases of bully-boy tactics from rogue employers.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will know, but I say in the interests of transparency, that one of my first meetings when I was appointed Secretary of State was with the head of Tata Steel. He will also know that having visited Hinkley Point as Energy Minister I am fully aware of the impact and the contribution that the Tata plant makes to infrastructure. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that this is a top priority of mine. I have made the point many times this morning that our infrastructure plans are absolutely intertwined with a strong domestic steel industry.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am very sorry I was late for the start, Mr Speaker, but I was having a rather shouted conversation with the Chief of the General Staff about the massive cut of 12% in our Army, and particularly the loss of my battalion—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think this has anything to do with the question; I think I would stick to the business question. You do not want to lose your place—come on, Captain Bob.

[Bob Stewart]

I knew I was going into the Valley of Death. The question, Sir, is this: what percentage of our national steel production, which is a sovereign capability, is affected by the Greensill Capital financial crisis? I am very sorry—I knew I was going to get into trouble.

[Mr Speaker]

No, I think it will be with the Chief Whip later.

National Security and Investment Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This Bill is welcome, necessary, important and, it has to be said, overdue. In making a few remarks about it, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Chairman of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), is not able to be with us and sends his apology. I will make a number of points from the Committee on his behalf and that of other Committee members.

The first is that this Bill is stimulated, at least in part, by the ISC report from 2013. That report, “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure”, made the case that new legislation was required. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has already made that point emphatically, but the Minister does need to explain what might have happened differently had this legislation been in place seven years earlier, because some of these powers are clearly retrospective but they do not stretch back into the mists of time.

The Bill is important, not least because the Government have acknowledged that the UK faces continued and broad-ranging hostile activity from foreign intelligence agencies, hostile state actors and others. Novel means of undermining UK national security include investments that can be structured to obscure the real actors behind them. This is not a straightforward matter of takeovers that are directly linked to defence or critical national infrastructure; it is subtler than that, as the Bill acknowledges and as the Government have said. I want to dig a little further into that during my extensive, but not tediously so, contribution.

The Bill’s importance is also reflected in the dynamism of the threat that we face, which is metamorphosing, as I implied a moment ago. Those who seek to undermine our national security are becoming increasingly clever at doing so and the Bill will need to exercise all the flexibility that its provisions permit. But it may be that, as well as that, we need to return to these matters time and again. In a recent debate, I emphasised that traditionally legislation coming before this House pertaining to security has been spasmodic—it has been periodic. Legislation has stood the test of time but, as the increasing dynamism of the threats we face obliges Government to think again about means of countering them, it may be that we see more legislation than we have hitherto in this area. I happily give way to my hon. Friend, a fellow member of the ISC

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for giving way. It seems to me that, if we define national security closely, we will not keep up with the speed at which it changes. So I am against the idea of having a definition of what national security is. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to concentrate on what is essentially the core of this Bill—our national security. Today our country continues to face a broad-ranging hostile attack from foreign intelligence agencies. A few of our critical industries and technologies may already have been purchased, at least in part, by foreign investors, some of whom may not have a particularly benign approach to British national security.

This Bill comes not before time, considering that the Intelligence and Security Committee ruled on the matter and suggested changes in 2013. Unless the UK curbs the right of foreign firms and investors to obtain technologies through the means of mergers and acquisitions, and similar, our advanced technologies could easily find their way into the weapons systems of foreign and potentially hostile states. This would definitely harm the UK either directly or indirectly. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to screen investments that might just pose a national security risk, and that is what we are talking about today.

Obviously the Bill very much reflects the views of the ISC, of which most Members, apart from the Chairman, are present. [Interruption.] I didn’t use the word “you”, did I, Madam Deputy Speaker? [Interruption.] Oh good—you were looking at me with horror.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I only pointed out that I was once a member of the ISC as well.

[Bob Stewart]

I am always a culprit on the word “you”. I have now lost my place, thanks to your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker!

The report produced by the ISC in 2013 contained a requirement for legislation, and we are now getting that legislation seven years later, which is rather a long delay. I am delighted that the Bill protects British industry and puts safeguards on it, but it puts particular safeguards on our national security. In future, investors will have no choice but to notify the Government if the ownership of certain businesses is to change hands—thank goodness for that. However, I note that the Secretary of State will also have the power to call in other businesses if he or she has concerns about national security. That is why I am slightly against a narrow definition of national security; I would prefer it to be a bit more fluid.

The decision to call in an investment will be based on three factors: the nature of the target of acquisition; the type and level of control being acquired and how that could be used in practice; and the extent to which the acquirer raises national security concerns. The list of sectors to be covered is under consultation. I will not use a mnemonic, which until today I thought was some sort of drill, but that list includes advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, cryptographic authentication, whatever that is, quantum technologies—I do know what that is—and satellite and space technologies, in which we are world leaders. It is very important that those sectors are guarded against being infiltrated, because that is what it is—infiltration to take away intellectual property.

At the moment, the UK is almost unique among major western economies in not having stand-alone foreign investment legislation, and this Bill will sort that out. It will give Ministers the power to look at transactions overall and to review them. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that it will result in well over 1,000 transactions a year—possibly up to 1,800, as some Members have suggested. That is a lot, and it means a lot of work for a specific department of BEIS. There will only be 100 people to do that work, which is slightly worrying.

I will finish, because I was told to be short—and I have been, in six minutes—and because I had your naughty finger pointed at me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Get on with it!

[Bob Stewart]

I am getting on with it! I am trying to finish. This is a good Bill. I hope the House will support it. I will not finish my last paragraph, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has stolen my thunder. This is a good Bill, and we need it.

A Green Industrial Revolution

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I fully accept that mankind is changing the earth’s climate. I have always worried about how we are altering the air we breathe, but I feel our actions are now turning the weather. I realise that climate is cyclical; there was a little ice age from late medieval times until the 1850s or thereabouts, and the Thames froze over and ice fairs were held. I also believe that when I was a little boy, not very long ago, it was much colder in the winter—that might just be in my mind, but I felt it was more icy. There is too much evidence of ferocious world weather nowadays for us to ignore what is happening.

Health is definitely being affected too. For instance, according to Bromley Council health people, in one recent year there were 60 deaths across the six wards in my constituency because of long-term exposure to polluted air. I agree that we have started to tackle the problem, and we have had some success: carbon emissions have, apparently, been reduced by 25% in the past 10 years, and that is great; and all coal-fired generating stations will be gone in the United Kingdom by 2025. It is also really good news that we are the world leader in offshore power generation. We have increased renewable energy generation sixfold in the past 10 years. In 2018, renewable sources of electricity generation supplied 33% of our electricity needs, which is up from 6.9% in 2010. This is all good news. More and more people are buying and using cars powered by electricity, but they are damn expensive. By 2040, diesel and petrol cars should be almost off our roads, so it seems the future for our vehicles will be electricity, but let us not forget hydrogen, which is another source that can be harnessed to run vehicles. A heck of a lot of investigation as to how that can happen is being undertaken by the car companies.

Of course, our Government have a major part to play in reducing carbon emissions, and we have too; on 27 June last year, Parliament amended the Climate Change Act 2008 to include the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. That is excellent news. Some say—I accept this—that we could get there earlier, and let us hope that that is the case, but at least we have a target. It would be superb if could get there as soon as possible. If we want to get to zero carbon emissions very fast, we have to accept the penalties: giving up our cars, diesel and petrol; travelling only by public transport; stopping flying off to exotic locations in aeroplanes; and changing our central heating systems.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and he alights on the issue of changing our heating systems. Does he agree that we need to incentivise, within the tax structure, the building of ground-source heat pumps and air-source heat pumps to ensure that they can replace traditional fossil fuel systems and get our carbon emissions down?

[Bob Stewart]

I certainly do, and I want it to happen in my house as soon as possible.

We are decarbonising our economy faster, apparently, than any other G20 country, and we have reduced our emissions by 29% in the past decade, but here is the point: every breath we take is full of something called particulates, which, to be honest, I did not know much about until recently. These particulates—particularly something called particulate matter 2.5—are about 200 times smaller than a grain of sand, so they just float through the air and go into our lungs. They pass into our bloodstream and end up somewhere in our brain, or any of our other organs. I am told—of course, I am no expert, and I suspect that very few of us in the House are experts—that this causes illness and death. Having looked at the January 2019 report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I understand that only 12% of particulate matter comes from vehicles.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning particulate matter, which is an issue of air pollution, but we should differentiate air pollution and climate change. They are two separate matters and we need to tackle them differently.

[Bob Stewart]

I accept that, and that I am no expert, so I accept the hon. Lady’s point of view, but particulate matter does have an impact on us all. Around 13% comes from industrial processes and 38% comes from wood burning and coal fires. That is quite a lot—more than comes from vehicles. I am looking up at the clock because I promised the Deputy Speaker that I would be finished in under 10 minutes—and I will.

I like the clean air strategy that was published in January last year: it is a good, bold new goal. We have to think carefully about using wood-burning stoves—I do not use the fireplace in my house anymore—and having open fires, and farms will have to change the way they do business. The move on the reduction of particulate matter has been welcomed by the World Health Organisation as an example for the rest of the world to follow.

As a good boy, I am now skipping through my pages, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make a final point. We produce about 1% to 2% of the world’s greenhouse gases. If we became carbon neutral right now, it might not make much difference, but that should not stop us doing it —we can become an example to the rest of the world—and the rest of the world is starting to follow and to deal with climate change. Bring it on: let us change the way we live so that the future is bright for those who follow us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

I will keep going, because I have only a short time. I will not take any more interventions.

We need to make sure that we can use smart demand management, using AI and technology. I have seen at first hand how this works on the national grid. We also need to unlock the potential of electric vehicles, because of the benefits that they bring to battery storage. I welcome the Government’s commitment to more EV charging points, although I believe we need more urgency on this subject.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the problems with electric vehicles is that they have batteries that cause real problems. We have a problem in making them without actually using resources.

[Vicky Ford]

The Science and Technology Committee looked into electric vehicles’ batteries and resources in great detail last year, particularly the demand for lithium and cobalt—precious materials that are a globally constrained resource. The fight for global minerals will be an increasingly important part of foreign policy, and I would like to see that part of the net zero challenge addressed in the Foreign Office as well. I have driven a hydrogen-fuelled car and returned it safely, giving the keys back at the end. Using hydrogen in cars and potentially feeding hydrogen into our domestic gas network could bring huge benefits.

I am pleased that the Government are to introduce a super-bus strategy. We need better buses in my city of Chelmsford. We need to have medium and long-term strategies on that. We also need to relook at how we run our railways. The service offered to my rail commuters in Chelmsford at the moment is simply not good enough.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) asked about air transport. As a one-nation Conservative I acknowledge the need to improve connectivity between all parts of our country, and regional airlines have a role to play in that, but as an eco-Tory I recognise the urgent need to tackle air transport emissions. It is good that the UK is leading the world in developing cleaner, greener aircraft—Cranfield University is a leader in this—but we should do more about carbon offsetting. Easyjet is now carbon offsetting all its flights, but Flybe does not offer that service to anyone. Consumers have a role to play, and they should be given the ability to carbon offset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). I think everyone on the Labour Benches would thank him for his kind words about Dennis Skinner, who was more than just an MP to us; he was a link to a period when people had dignity at work and felt respected in what they did, and when we had real communities that were strengthened by the work and the ethos that people had as part of their community. For Labour Members, Dennis is a link to so much more than just the Labour party, and to hear the hon. Gentleman’s warm words meant so much.

On the idea of a statue, I cannot speak for Dennis, although I can think of one word, or perhaps two words that he might say as one word: something like “Give over!” The thought is appreciated, though, and who knows what will happen on this side of the House and how far that will go? Even though it came from the Conservative Benches, I think Dennis would have appreciated that and the hon. Gentleman’s warm words, for which we thank him.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my friend for allowing me to intervene. I speak as a friend of Dennis Skinner. The lesson for everyone new coming into this place is to realise that there is a difference between politics and friendship. Friendship stretches across the House; politics may differ, but friendship is firm. Dennis is one of those sorts of people who would be very welcoming when one sat down and had a chat with him.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes an important point. I hope that in the coming weeks, months and years we all remember each other’s common humanity. It is important that we hold on to that.

Let us understand the backcloth to this debate: Australia is currently on fire; 2,000 homes have been destroyed; 27 people have lost their lives; and half a billion animals have been incinerated. An area larger than either Hungary or Portugal has been razed to the ground. Meanwhile, to its north, the rains that never reached Australia are flooding Indonesia. This pattern is being repeated across the globe.

We are already in an era of wild weather: seasons appear at the wrong times; food harvests are diminished; pollinating and insect-mating seasons are being disrupted; and, without our noticing, the seas have been warming and storms increasing at an alarming rate. This is the beginning of climate disruption. We have talked about it for a long time. It is now here. We are at a stage that cannot easily be reversed, but that can be stopped from heading into runaway breakdown. The key is what we do within the current decade, which is what makes the Queen’s Speech so important.

If the Prime Minister understood the emergency, the Queen’s Speech would have included measures such as: introducing UK carbon budgets to reduce CO₂ emissions by 20% a year; removing planning permission for new buildings connected to the gas grid; reinstating Britain’s zero-carbon homes standard; putting in place a national fuel poverty, home energy efficiency programme; raising the UK tree planting targets to 3 billion within a decade; transferring the roads budget into new public transport networks; and, because building resilience into every part of our economy from infrastructure to food security is now critical, making a huge investment in flood prevention programmes and everything else that goes with that.

Later this year, the UK will host the COP26 gathering of nations still struggling to set up a robust framework to avoid climate breakdown. It is an opportunity for Britain to lead rather than just to host. Are there any measures in this Queen’s Speech to show how we will do this? No, of course there are not. Has anyone actually told the PM that one cannot just turn up to COP and go, “Bing, bang, boom, bong, phwoar, climate crisis!”? We have to stand on our record, and this Government do not have one. Members do not have to take my word for it. In its latest assessment, the Committee on Climate Change said that the UK is not

“on track to meet the fourth carbon budget. To meet future carbon budgets and the 100% target for 2050 it will require the government to apply more challenging measures.”

To you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that means pull your finger out because: the world is burning; biodiversity is collapsing; the oceans are warming; the ice caps are melting; and the world is watching us here in the UK this year.

Ultimately, I fear that nothing we say in this place will change the mind of this Government. The entirety of this Government’s mandate has been founded on one thing, which is to get Brexit done—it pains me to say that. When we understand that this is a hard right political project, we will understand that this Government have no intention of facing up to the climate crisis. Brexit has always been about trade deals that do not give a damn about climate, inequality or the global south. It is about deregulation that lets corporations raping our planet do so with ever more impunity. That is what Brexit is actually about, and that is why the Queen’s Speech has failed even the most basic of tests.

Ultimately, little we say in here will make a difference with this Government. The only way that millions of people in this country will see any real change is to build a climate mass movement, the likes of which the world has not yet seen, to force them to act. Greta Thunberg, the youth climate strikers and the global climate movement have shown us all the way. It is now time for us in this place to join them, to build a movement and show that our democracy is capable of changing course and building a better and more sustainable future.

Climate Change, the Environment and Global Development

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the hon. Lady for those points. There has been a clear trend in UK Export Finance to move away from support for fossil fuels and towards significant additional resources going into funding renewables. Where fossil fuels have been supported they have been fuels such as gas, which is widely seen as a transition fossil fuel, and away from high-polluting fossil fuels such as coal, which UK Export Finance has not financed for well over a decade. I will touch on Brazil in my speech, so if she will allow me I will come on to that shortly.

Through programmes like the Climate Investment Funds, we are: climate-proofing road and canals in Zambia; mainstreaming climate resilience into Government planning in Malawi and Mozambique; supporting climate-vulnerable small island states to manage climate risks; and helping to drive investment in some of the largest solar power complexes in the world. Through programmes like the Renewable Energy Performance Platform, we are mobilising private sector investment in solar homes systems and small-scale renewable energy in sub-Saharan Africa, bringing clean power to those who need it most.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my good friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Ever since I was a boy, I have always been extremely concerned about jet fuel being injected directly into the upper atmosphere. I was told when I was young that it was clean. Of course it is not. One of the really big problems we have internationally is that jets go across our skies—some of them are not ours, obviously—and we cannot electrify a jet engine. It would be wonderful if someone could come up with a way of making an electric jet engine, so that we do not spew out exhaust into the upper atmosphere, which must have a direct effect on our climate.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I agree with most of what my hon. and gallant Friend says. I would just say that we do not have an electric jet engine—yet. Through the industrial strategy, a huge number of programmes are being run through my Department, including the Future Flight Challenge, which is looking at exactly these challenges so that we do not just electrify road transport, but move to lighter-weight and more efficient engines, and eventually on to electric engines flying our passenger aircrafts. Some of that work is running over a long period of time, but between Government and industry we are investing billions of pounds in exactly the kind of challenge he talks about.

We are a world leader in climate policy, green finance, and sustainable services and technologies. Through our climate aid programmes we are sharing our learning and expertise internationally, whether bilaterally or in multilateral forums, building on our pioneering Climate Change Act 2008, net zero legislation and standard-setting power sector reform, helping to build markets for clean growth technology and services worldwide. To give the House an example, in June, my Department hosted delegates from 12 developing countries for a week-long workshop to introduce them to British expertise in offshore wind and see it in action in the Tees Valley. We are now working with the World Bank to support those countries with their plans to develop their own offshore wind projects.

We are building bilateral partnerships to tackle these challenges. For example, the UK recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Colombia, signalling the start of a bold new partnership for sustainable growth. This first-of-its-kind partnership focuses on: clean growth; halting deforestation and environmental crime; preserving biodiversity; and promoting green finance to ensure the private sector can play its part in supporting Colombia’s transformation. About 200,000 square hectares of forest are lost each year in Colombia, putting its diverse ecosystems, indigenous communities and natural resources at risk, as well as driving greenhouse gas emissions. Our programmes address the structural development issues that lead to such deforestation, and in turn reduce carbon emissions.

One of our programmes works to restore degraded land, increase biodiversity and protect standing forests while at the same time increasing agricultural production by 17%, bringing income to the poorest farmers. That is sustainable development in action, benefiting the climate, the environment and people’s livelihoods. Working to mobilise private investment to address the climate challenges is a strong focus of our climate aid, and our innovative, market-driven approach ensures that we meet global climate and sustainable development needs hand in hand.

To give another example, growing demand for soy is driving agricultural expansion and deforestation in Brazil, particularly in the Cerrado savannah region, driving up emissions and causing environmental destruction. During London Climate Action Week, we announced a green bond that will help to prevent land conversion and restore natural habitats, while supporting farmers to grow their businesses. Launched the same week as the green finance strategy, it highlights our commitment to using our green finance expertise to support sustainable development in Brazil and other countries that will be most directly impacted by the effects of climate change.

Whistleblowing

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I completely understand, and am sympathetic to, that point. We need to work together to establish this independent office of the whistleblower. Sometimes whistleblowers pay such a heavy price in terms of the financial consequences that flow from their actions that perhaps there is a case for compensation, but I have not made up my mind. We have to hear more evidence and have a wider discussion in Parliament about these issues. It is absolutely clear, however, that whistleblowers need somewhere safe to go, and to be supported and have their cases properly advocated in the face of power, authority and bureaucracy.

I mentioned the problem of blacklisting. One person told us how he had been blacklisted for speaking up. He had reported criminal activity to the employer. Instead of dealing with the issue, the employer dealt with the person who had spoken up in the first place and coerced them to stay silent. It is bad enough to have something criminal going on within one’s business, but then to cover it up, and contrive to force those who are willing to speak up for the reputation of the organisation or business to leave, is clearly unacceptable, and then to seek to blacklist them so that they cannot work in a profession in which they have trained and acquired qualifications is truly shameful.

The complex legal framework surrounding whistle- blowing covers too few people. It is complex and legalistic. Many of the whistleblowers whom we met were not recognised as whistleblowers by the law. The tests that are necessary to stop people abusing whistleblowing are too stringent and do not recognise complexity. One employee brought up issues of racism at work and the flouting of HR rules. The employer, instead of recognising the whistleblowing, tried to diagnose a mental health issue, sending the employee on medical leave. The company-appointed psychologist then broke confidentiality to speak to the managers of the business. Although regulators confirmed that the employee had a point, they were dismissed and have received no justice.

Whistleblowers can be dragged through the courts, with mounting costs and unending hassles. For many, their cases have consumed their lives. It may be thought that the best advice such a person could be given would be “Move on and forget it”, but that is not justice; it is unjust. While it might be said to have been good and well-intentioned advice, is that really the way in which we in this place want the affairs of our country—economic, and relating to public service—to be dealt with? I really do not think so.

However, it is equally important not to limit the definition of whistleblowers to employees. As I said earlier, and as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, many categories of people should have the protection to which whistleblowers are legally entitled. We must ensure that, when they blow the whistle, they are given proper protection under the law—and the law is too vague in this regard.

When an individual faces the full force of a corporate or public sector legal department, it is a complete mismatch. Public corporations should be mandated to disclose legal costs to shareholders in such cases, and the same should be true of public authorities. They should have to make clear and transparent the costs of fighting whistleblowers that will be borne by the taxpayer. Some of the estimates of the costs that have been incurred by public services are absolutely mind-blowing and wholly disproportionate.

One brave whistleblower in Scotland had evidence of HR malpractice. It should have been a simple grievance dealt by the organisation, which should have been pleased to receive the feedback from that person. Instead, the person and their family, who also worked there, were victimised. They cannot afford legal representation, and will have to argue their own case at a tribunal against a public sector legal department with an expansive budget.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. It seems to me that the very best companies, corporations and organisations should include in their codes of ethics or conduct a requirement for employees, or people for whom they have responsibility, to report things that are wrong. In the first instance, that should happen within the organisation, but if people still feel that they have not obtained satisfaction, there should be a device within the organisation enabling them to report things, and they should not be victimised for that. They should be applauded, because if they do that, the company will get better.

[Stephen Kerr]

I completely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I cannot understand why any organisation would not embrace the feedback someone brings them when it has to do with the types of things whistleblowers raise: why on earth would any business or public sector organisation not want to know when things are not being done right—what is right in terms of the law, what is morally right, and what is right in terms of the values of the organisation? And there absolutely should be a no recriminations policy in any organisation worth its salt. I also absolutely believe that there needs to be a place where whistleblowers can go, a safe harbour where their case will be properly treated and respected and where they will get the necessary level of support, whatever that support might be, so their case can be properly heard.

I think I have made it clear that I strongly believe that no organisation of any repute should be operating in the ways we have heard discussed in this debate by various colleagues. Governments and companies should be confident enough to know when they are wrong, and they should be honest and brave enough to address that. The reaction to whistleblowing should be to say, “Thank you; thank you for speaking up”, and then when the whistleblower’s words and evidence are evaluated organisations should be more than happy; in fact, they should be recognising and themselves rewarding whistleblowers who speak up so that the changes that flow from that will mean they as businesses or public service organisations can become more efficient, effective and ethical in the way they operate.

The APPG will soon publish its findings and recommendations, and we will further consider and promote the case for an independent office for the whistleblower, giving protection to and advocating in the interests of whistleblowers. We shall also be asking for an end to the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up wrongdoing, criminality and other morally dubious behaviour. That idea must be fully debated and explored, because there are currently far too many abuses of NDAs.

Parliament and Government have a responsibility to set the conditions and the standards; we have to create the culture in our country where people feel confident that they can and should speak up in the public interest. We want whistleblowing recognised as a positive and public-spirited thing to do, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply today, but this is the start of the debate on this issue, not an end, and we must recognise the courage and integrity of people who do the right things for the right reasons, because they are guided in what they are doing by conscience and the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for securing and opening this debate, and to the other members of the APPG for their work on this topic.

Bristol Royal, Mid Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay, Liverpool, Gosport, Whorlton Hall—all shocking scandals of health and social care. In every one of those scandals, there was a whistleblower years before it came out who tried to raise concerns and protect people. They were ignored, and that is often the least that happens, as they are often undermined, victimised or dismissed.

[Bob Stewart]

I suspect that the hon. Lady might be going on to say that those people were then blacklisted; they could not get another job in the health service afterwards, for some reason that they could never actually ascertain.

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. As a medic myself, it is clear that we are advised by the General Medical Council, the Royal College of Nursing and various official bodies that we must speak up—that we have a duty to speak up. However, the landscape we look at is littered with broken careers and often broken people.

The problem is that whistleblowers think they are protected because they have heard about whistleblower protection, but it simply does not exist. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk talked about “brave people” speaking up. People should not have to be brave to raise concerns. If all people see is others ahead of them who have been driven and hounded out of their career, and who have maybe ended up with mental health issues or worse, then that is a big, black, threatening cloud—keep your mouth shut, keep your nose clean, walk by on the other side. The problem is that that results in more suffering and more death.

There are two aspects to this issue: business and industry, which is represented most commonly by the finance sector; and public services, which are most commonly represented by the NHS. Those two sectors—finance and the NHS—probably generate the biggest number of scandals and whistleblowing cases, and therefore specific treatment is required in those industries to invite whistleblowers to come forward and protect them.

While there is UK-wide regulation of finance, health services are devolved. The four health services are struggling with this and working to improve whistleblowing. After the Mid Staffs scandal, Sir Robert Francis highlighted that in Mid Staffs—indeed, this was an issue in some of the later scandals—there was an obsession with becoming a foundation trust. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and others have talked about why people cover things up. Whether it is a high-profile business or a public service that has been corporatised, there is a drive to remain shiny and perfect on the outside, instead of admitting a problem and trying to fix it.

Having produced his report, Sir Robert Francis set up the “freedom to speak up” guardians in hospitals and the national guardian. In Scotland, the local person in health boards—we do not have trusts—is a specific non-executive director who is a whistleblowing champion. The advantages of a non-executive director is that they are on the board, with a clear and loud voice, and they are not an employee, but they are part of the system. The “freedom to speak up” guardians are employed by the trust, so they are operational—they are a person to go to—but they are also an employee. There are issues at the trust and health board level with how the guardians or champions themselves are protected. Perhaps we need not only an independent national office but an independent system. In the NHS, that might be people who are taking responsibility for safety or healthcare services information. Unfortunately the legislation on that is in the Brexit long grass, but I hope it will eventually come forward.

There is a national guardian in England, but it does not have statutory powers. Scotland has set up an Independent National Whistleblowing Officer, who is basically the public services ombudsman. They are completely separate—they are outside the system—and they have statutory powers, which is important. A reporting and advice line was set up back in 2013, so that if people were afraid to report locally or were not getting anywhere, they could report to that phoneline.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is indeed correct, because we have been clear that we will not be rolling back workers’ rights when we leave the European Union. That has been further guaranteed by the introduction of the “Good Work Plan”—I will say more about that later—and we have already laid three SIs dealing with workers’ rights. We are going further on workers’ rights and increasing the wages for the lowest paid. We are sticking to our commitment. I am proud to be part of a Government who have put workers’ rights and the lowest paid in our society at the top of our agenda, so I will take no lectures from the Opposition in that regard.

We will increase the personal allowance of the lowest-paid workers to £12,500 in April. That will take 1.7 million people out of tax. Since 2015, the national minimum wage has risen faster than average wages and inflation. For the lowest paid, there has been 8% growth, above inflation, between April 2015 and April 2018. I will therefore not listen to accusations that we have not continued to work towards our commitment to reach 60% of median pay by 2020.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I confirm that the lowest paid will get the same deal that they get now, or better, if Brexit happens, which it will?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. The rates that come into force in April will be the same whether we leave the European Union or not—[Interruption]—as we leave the European Union.

Those increases did not happen year on year under the last Labour Government. This Government have made and delivered that commitment. This year, we have come forward with another plan, which accepts the recommendations of the independent Low Pay Commission. It takes its job extremely seriously, produces great reports, consults businesses and workers, and ensures that its independent recommendations to Government are objective and fair.