Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Dan Jarvis

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.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Dan Jarvis

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

Speaking as a commanding officer who has gone into the field, may I point out to the House that it is not just this Bill that we have to operate under? Let us take, for example, torture. Article 17 of the Geneva convention specifically prohibits torture, and we can be charged for that. I certainly used to make great emphasis of this point in training troops to go into the field. It is not just this Bill under which we operate.

[Dan Jarvis]

My friend the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises a very important point. The reality is that, despite what we have heard from some Members today, if this Bill is passed in its current form, a decision to allow a prosecution to proceed following an allegation of torture after five years had elapsed would be made virtually impossible due to the threshold imposed by the triple lock. This is not the way to rebuild our reputation on the international stage. It would mean the UK reneging on our international legal obligations and could well put us at odds with the ICC. At a time when we are witnessing an erosion of human rights and leaders turning their backs on international institutions, it is more important than ever before that we uphold our values and standards and not undermine them.

Through this Bill, the Government are seeking to right a wrong, but not by addressing the root cause of the issue. In an interview last year—we have heard the quote already, but it is worth hearing again—the Minister for Defence People and Veterans said that one of the biggest problems with this was

“the military’s inability to investigate itself properly and the standard of those investigations. If those investigations were done properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably wouldn’t be here today.”

The Minister is absolutely right, and the underlying problem is how we have ended up at this point, but nowhere in the Bill does it mention the need to review how military investigations are conducted. If we had a credible investigatory system that dealt with allegations in an effective, impartial and timely manner—one that allowed us to refer back with confidence—we would not be in the position that we are in now.

There is, though, plenty of support across this House for measures that will protect members of our armed forces. We all know, and I am sure we all agree, that historical prosecutions of our veterans is an emotionally charged subject and one that urgently demands a solution, because nobody—surely nobody—wants to see a repeat of the decades of legal wrangling, the delay and the misery that are still ongoing following investigations into the troubles.

I conclude by saying that the overwhelming majority of members of our armed forces serve with distinction and honour, and they follow the rules, but no one—not one of us—is above the law, and that principle remains true whether or not somebody wears a uniform. One of the best ways to protect our troops is to ensure that we apply the rule of law in every instance. There is much work to be done to improve this Bill, and I hope very much that Ministers will listen to the concerns that have been expressed today and work constructively to improve it in Committee and beyond. I hope that we all agree that we owe the brave men and women of our armed forces—the people who serve our nation—a massive debt. Diminishing their hard-won reputation by reneging on our legal and moral obligations is not the manner in which to repay it.

Battle of Arnhem: 75th Anniversary

Debate between Bob Stewart and Dan Jarvis

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great eloquence on these matters. I did not expect his intervention. He is absolutely right and I completely agree with him. I do not want to say anything further because I may struggle to get through it, such was the eloquence with which he expressed himself. I am grateful to him for his intervention.

I was reflecting on the fact that commemoration is, of course, about what has gone before, but it is incredibly important that we also think about what is happening today. It is in that spirit that we reflect not just on the heroes of the past and those who have served previously, but on those who serve today. The environment in which our armed forces operate has changed significantly over the years, but it is just as important to champion those who serve today.

While serving with the regiment, I made the pilgrimage —I use that word deliberately—to Arnhem on a number of occasions. I remember standing in front of the graves of those who fell. I felt humbled and inspired by their courage and their service. As was rightly said, they are, in fact, men apart—every man an emperor.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He is fully aware, as I am, that five Victoria Crosses were awarded at Arnhem: two to members of the Parachute Regiment, one to a Royal Air Force officer, and two to members of my regiment, the South Staffords. A sixth VC got away. Mike Dauncey’s VC was downgraded by Montgomery because he thought that five was enough for a debacle, which the battle had turned out to be strategically—nothing to do with the courage of those involved, but strategically.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for making that point. He is absolutely right to make reference to the outstanding courage and valour of those who served; I will do so in a bit more detail myself in just a moment.

I was reflecting on the fact that each year a commemorative service takes place at Oosterbeek cemetery, during which local schoolchildren emerge from the woods to lay flowers on the graves of those fallen allied soldiers. It is, without doubt, one of the most moving scenes that I have ever witnessed; the hairs on the back of my neck are standing up right now as I recall the reverence with which those schoolchildren and the whole Dutch community pay respect to those who lost their lives, to whom they feel a debt of gratitude for their service. That remembrance service has taken place every year since 1945, and of course it took place again this year. Marking the anniversary of Arnhem is an important tradition to our friends in Holland; the reverence that the Dutch have for those who served is truly inspiring and hugely appreciated.

For those not familiar with the story of Arnhem, it may seem incongruous that it is held in such esteem, given that German forces saw the battle as such a major success. But there is a reason why it is the most important date in the calendar for our airborne forces. Arnhem is the moment when they wrote themselves into the pages of history.

As the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, among many acts of valour five Victoria Crosses were awarded during those nine days of fighting. They were awarded to: Lieutenant John Grayburn, of the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment; Captain Lionel Queripel, of the 10th Battalion, the Parachute Regiment; Lance-Sergeant John Baskeyfield, of the 2nd Battalion, South Staffordshire Regiment; Major Robert Cain, of the 2nd Battalion, South Staffordshire Regiment; and Flight Lieutenant David Lord, of 271 Squadron, Royal Air Force.

One of the most powerful testimonials given following the battle was delivered by General Eisenhower, who, in writing to Major-General Urquhart, the British commander at Arnhem, said:

“In this war there has been no single performance by any unit that has more greatly inspired me or more highly excited my admiration, than the nine days action of your division between 17 and 26 September.”

On the anniversary this year, I thought of Tom Hicks, all his comrades and all those who served on Operation Market Garden and at Arnhem—not celebrating, but commemorating. In doing so, I tried to understand the heroism and tragedy and how they shaped the lives of so many, including myself. We will forever be in their debt.

First World War (Commemoration)

Debate between Bob Stewart and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with that; there is a strength that comes from our diversity. As the Minister also said, it is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to commemorate the service and sacrifice of those people who had never come to Britain before but came here to support our efforts. We have a huge debt of gratitude to pay to them, and we will miss an opportunity if we do not reflect on that in these commemorations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned Ireland and the troubles it was experiencing during the first world war. None the less, the Irish came across to support us, from north and south, in huge numbers. He also mentioned the Victoria Cross, so I would like to place on the record the fact that it has been won by more Irishmen than Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen put together.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for that intervention as I did not know that. I am sure that the House will be extremely grateful for that contribution and I suspect that many of us will have learned something from it.

In that same spirit, I wish to reflect briefly for a moment on the significance of people such as Walter Tull, the first black officer in the British Army; that was just one small step on the road to affording ethnic minorities the recognition and respect they deserve.

We should also take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that the war left its mark on this place where we gather today. Of all the countries that went to war in 1914, Britain’s was the only Parliament to debate entry into the conflict. When the lamps went out that night on 4 August, it left more than just a shadow over this place; 251 existing and future MPs would serve in the first world war, and 19 from the Parliament of 1914 would not come back. Their shields mark this Chamber and watch over us today, and they were joined by 24 Members of the other place, as well as 20 parliamentary staff—clerks, waiters and cleaners—who were also killed in action.

Economic Regeneration (Barnsley)

Debate between Bob Stewart and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive and useful intervention. I believe that the ASOS model provides a useful example of how the Barnsley development agency, working with the metropolitan borough council, can aggressively seek to target other industries and businesses. The ASOS model is a useful one that we need to learn lessons from and employ in future.

As I have said, what we need is the investment to overcome the entirely man-made barriers to our progress. Without that, as my colleague the shadow Business Secretary recently said,

“the government’s belief that the retreat of the state is automatically matched by the expansion of the private sectors is going to be tested to destruction.”

The Government have dispensed with the strategic investment fund, with grants for business investment and with regional development agencies. The new regional growth fund has only a third of the money that was available under RDAs. I accept that RDAs were not without their failings, but the local enterprise partnerships that have replaced them are short on funding and short on power.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that any Government Member or anyone in this country wants to cut jobs just for the sake of it for some reason of politics? The fact is that jobs have had to go because we just cannot afford them any longer and we cannot just plough money into the public sector all the time.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not believe that Government Members think of these issues in such ways but this is a matter of policy. Barnsley is the kind of place that will go into a recession first and come out of it last and I believe that when the Government are making significant cuts to public services that will have an impact on jobs and livelihoods across Barnsley, they have a duty and an obligation to pause and consider the effect that those cuts will have on the people in Barnsley.

Where public sector cuts are made and jobs in the public service are lost, I do not believe that it is a given that the private sector will come in and fill the void. That should not be a natural assumption. In order to promote the kinds of conditions that allow the private sector to invest in places such as Barnsley, there needs to be a targeted programme of investment and development. I do not believe that the policies that the Government are putting in place will do that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his useful intervention.

The LEPs, which have replaced RDAs, are short on funding and short on power. They are not even guaranteed the money for their own start-up costs, never mind for investment to support business. They will have to apply to the regional growth fund, whose first round of funding is already 10 times oversubscribed, and they have been denied access to cash from the European regional development fund, which is being centralised at the desk of a Whitehall bureaucrat. Perhaps the Minister can explain how that fits with the Government’s supposed localism agenda.

I believe that we can and must do better than that. First, we can strengthen the LEPs and make them much better able to co-ordinate and lead a strategic approach to regional development. Among other things, that means giving them access to the ERDF and allowing them to join together to secure investment for cross-regional projects. It means giving them a stronger, more formal role in the development of local economic growth plans. It means removing or reducing the £1 million threshold for RGF bids so that smaller companies can apply and LEPs can work with them to bring in the investment projects needed to spur growth. Will the Minister consider these changes?