Post Office Horizon Scandal

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and for the number of times she has raised this particular issue and set out her thoughts, which have proved very useful. We think that 30% of people from the group litigation order scheme have chosen the £75,000 fixed sum award route. Clearly, that is an estimate. We at least have some evidence from the other scheme on how effective that is.

If people choose not to go down that route, and if they believe their losses are in excess of that, they can go down the full assessment route. We are trying to make that as rapid as possible. It is a process of alternative dispute resolution. Potentially, things can happen very quickly, but if that cannot be agreed then it goes to an independent panel for assessment. There is independence at every part of the process. People going down that route can get interim payments if they are needed, so that they do not suffer financial hardship. We are keen to make sure not only that people get a fair amount, but that it is also seen to be fair. Independence is an essential part of that process.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the urgent question, and I thank the Minister for the swiftness with which he has acted, and particularly for his recognition of the need to talk to the devolved Administrations and of the fact that the situation in Scotland is slightly different, as the Post Office was not able to prosecute there and that was done through the official Crown services. With that in mind, and given the need he expressed to encourage people to come forward—in Scotland, it is very much more difficult to gauge how many people were affected—it is not just enough for us to say, “Please come forward.” We need a proactive campaign to encourage people to come forward and reassure them that they will not face the same sort of delays that the victims of Hillsborough and the infected blood scandal have faced, but that this will be acted on swiftly.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. Although they were prosecuted under different authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the cases were generally prepared by the Post Office itself, so I do not think we have any greater confidence about the status of those convictions than we have in those in the rest of the UK. We are therefore very keen to engage with the Scottish Administration on what we are doing. Hopefully, there will be a consistent scheme across the UK.

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that we need to be proactive in our message to people about coming forward, and in our message from the House that we are working together and that this process is now much more streamlined. It will not even necessarily require sub-postmasters to make an application for their conviction to be overturned. That will happen much more quickly, and any access routes we have now for compensation will be made swifter and more rapid. I think those things alone will mean more people come forward. As I said, we have seen a good number of new people come forward. Hudgell, one of the solicitors involved in claims for some of the victims, have had, I think, 130 new people contact them on the basis of the TV programme and possibly because of the new actions we are taking to make sure compensation is more smoothly and easily available.

Gender Recognition

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I do agree. Certainly in the majority of physical sports it is fairer and safer to separate on the basis of biological sex, and it is crucial that sporting bodies understand their responsibilities to women. A poor understanding of equalities law has led to women such as the pool player Lynne Pinches having to take legal action to ensure fair competition in their sport, and girls often fear being physically injured by biological males. Rather than speaking up about the abuse, they endure it because they are scared of being called bigots. I would say to people across the House that calling people transphobic and calling them bigots when they express concern is creating a chilling effect. I had a group of schoolchildren, teenage girls, in my office who told me that because of mixed-sex sports they are bullied and pushed around—one of them talked about her glasses been broken—because the boys are using the opportunity to bully. We should think about children and we should think about protecting them, so I disagree with the labelling of anyone who has a different opinion as transphobic. That is what is causing the problems in this debate, and I am determined to bring some light rather than the heat that others continue to generate.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I actually agree with the Secretary of State that putting labels of any sort on people in any part of this debate is unacceptable and we should not indulge it. The Secretary of State also said that this is an important decision, and I agree with that too; it is an important statement. She also said that this has to be evidence-based, and I completely agree with that. Could she tell us which organisations in this country concerned with LGBT rights and with human rights generally she consulted on this statement, and what their responses and recommendations were?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady is right; we did carry out extensive consultations, but remember, this is something that we do repeatedly and periodically. The fact that we have not carried this out since 2011 shows that we have been remiss in our duties, and that is something that I am fixing. One of the issues is that a lot of people do not understand the law when it comes to self-identification. We are providing clarity there. We have engaged with numerous LGBT groups, but the fact of the matter is that many of them support self-ID. That is not this Government’s policy. Stonewall does not decide the law in this country—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Whatever it is that people want to campaign on, we will listen and we will hear, but we have been very clear about this. This is something that we are not budging on. We are updating the law in accordance with Government policy, and we will continue to do so.

Post Office Services: Edinburgh West

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The subject of the debate is post office services in Edinburgh West. Although it is about my constituency, the problem could just as easily apply to many constituencies throughout the country. Indeed, I have not spoken to a single Member who has not said that their constituency faces the same problem with post office closures as we face in Edinburgh West.

When I was thinking about the debate, I wondered what the answer might be if I asked any of the children in my constituency what a post office was and what they used it for. I also thought they might look at me with astonishment if I told them that what they now regard as part of the local shop was once the organisation that provided everything from our telephone services at home, our mail and all sorts of Government forms, to pensions and stamps.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. Last week, the parliamentary group of the Democratic Unionist party met the Northern Ireland sub-postmasters association. Every one of those issues that she mentions were discussed with us. We were told that those opportunities were no longer available in the post office, by which I mean MOTs, car tax renewals, and passport renewals. The post office was also used as a community hub. All of those things highlight how important post offices were. I know that the hon. Lady has said all of that, so I hope that, in his response, the Minister can give us some succour and respite in relation to what the post offices can and should do.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. These were all vital services. Not so very long ago, post offices were central to communities up and down the country. They also provided some of the most spectacular examples of architecture, and they dominated our town centres. The local post office was where I applied for my first driving licence. I opened my first savings account there and queued for what seemed like hours every Christmas to make sure that the family’s cards and presents went off safely to various parts of Australia and Canada—but not any more. The Post Office I grew up with in the 1960s had 25,000 branches. In 2021, that figure had more than halved to 11,415, with more than half of those listed as vulnerable. The organisation itself lost £597 million in the same year.

In Scotland we have the biggest problem in the UK, having lost more than 6% of our post offices in the past two years alone. In Edinburgh West, two have closed and one has been relocated to a different area in the past year. As I said earlier, this problem is not isolated to Scotland or to Edinburgh West. One third of rural post offices are now offered as part-time outreach services.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. This is a truly national problem, which unfortunately affects the whole of the UK. Indeed, there is also a related problem of postal deliveries not appearing on time, which is having a huge effect on many residents. I have had closures of post offices in my constituency in Reading and Woodley, and also severe problems with residents not getting post on time, leading to people missing out on paying their bills and many other things.

[Christine Jardine]

That is a good point. The national service is being undermined. As the hon. Member mentioned, deliveries are not being made. Moreover, one third of rural post offices are now only part-time outreach services, open for an average of five and a half hours. It is not the service that we knew for many years and that communities are entitled to expect.

The irony of all this is that the Post Office still generates around £5 billion for the economy every year. In constituencies such as mine, which has lost 70% of its bank branches since 2015, we increasingly rely on the post office for banking services and so much more.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I would like to share with my hon. Friend a short quote from a letter that a constituent of mine wrote to me about the reduction of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and other Government services at post office branches. He said:

“Having worked for the Insolvency Service, I am aware that there are many people who do not have bank accounts, are better able to manage their affairs using cash, or need the reassurance of a face-to-face transaction to avoid getting into difficulties.”

Does she agree with my constituent?

[Christine Jardine]

I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent. Citizens Advice tells us that almost 20% of people still visit their post office weekly for one of the services that he mentioned. That increases to 23% of those in rural areas, 27% of carers, 22% of over-65s and 21% of disabled people, so there is a need in our communities. On the DVLA services that my hon. Friend mentioned, the contract with the Post Office ends in March next year. Currently, the Post Office handles more than 6 million DVLA transactions annually, which contributes £3.2 million per year to postmaster remuneration.

People rely on their post offices for all these services, yet we are seeing them fail because they do not have the support that they need from the Government. It is not worth their while; the postmasters who are closing in my constituency tell me that they do not have the support that they need. If we are to save what was once rightly claimed to be the front desk of Government in our communities from becoming an adjunct slotted into shops that are willing to put up with it, we need something to be done quickly.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We have all heard the point about post offices being the front desk of Government, but at the same time we are told that Government services will be digital by default. Is not the root cause of the problem the lack of strategy that would stem from a coherent Government position?

[Christine Jardine]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no coherence to the Government’s position. Digital services do not work for everybody. Not everybody wants them. As with so many of our public services—buses, trains, the NHS and water—we need a recognition that this issue needs action now. It needs investment, and better support for those who supply the services. The reality is that some people will not be able to lead their lives as they would wish without the services that our post offices have traditionally offered, which are being undermined. Most do not want to; they enjoy the comfort of having a post office. They enjoy being able to pop in, particularly in rural communities, and buy their stamps, or collect their pensions.

This week, I was at my office in Edinburgh West. A gentleman stopped me in the street and asked me, ironically, whether I knew where the nearest post office was. Fortunately, I did. He had an A4 envelope in his hand. He said, “I need to get a stamp and post this, and I can’t find one,” so I directed him along the road. A post office is a simple thing, but they are vital to communities up and down the country. If the Minister, or the Prime Minister, has any doubts I would be more than happy to take them to a post office in Edinburgh West and introduce them to the many people who use the services that are still available—but I would quite like to do it while I still can, and while they are still there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I say that both as a Member of Parliament serving a rural area and as postal affairs Minister. We want to make sure that every citizen of this entire nation is served properly. Post offices do an important job in that. We need to make sure that post offices are there, not just due to Government support, but because people use them. There are some things that we are working hard on to try to make sure that the level of remuneration, which lies at the heart of this debate, is improved.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is aware, Duart Crescent and Blackhall post offices have both unfortunately closed in recent months, due to their respective postmasters choosing to resign; they were not closed by the Post Office. The Post Office is advertising those opportunities to local retailers to try to reinstate services.

[Christine Jardine]

On the Minister’s point about Duart Crescent, yes, the postmaster resigned, but it is proving impossible to get a replacement there and in Blackhall, because the remuneration does not encourage them. Perhaps he will bear in mind another important point: we are all buying things online, and consumers are driving that change, but Royal Mail delivers a lot of them and we often go to the post office to return or collect them.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I will come to those comments shortly. Remuneration has to be part of the solution.

Barnton post office and Davidson’s Mains post office are both under a mile away respectively from the previous outlets at Duart Crescent and Blackhall, so there are post office services, and I understand that there are public transport routes to those services, although I have not been myself. The Government understand the disruption that the two recent closures will no doubt have caused. In October, Broomhall Drive post office opened, following a local consultation exercise in line with Post Office’s principles of community engagement, after the temporary closure of the St John’s Road post office.

Let me turn to future opportunities. Post office banking services are really important—again, they are important to remuneration—and there have been some issues with deposit limits. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I have applied a certain amount of pressure to banks and UK Finance to ensure that that situation is resolved, and it has improved to an extent, which is good news. We have also legislated, through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, for access to cash, which is really important. The Financial Conduct Authority is required to ensure that people have access to cash.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that, when the contract is up shortly, a longer contract, to ensure stability for post offices with the banks, and the creation of more hubs that involve post offices, will be essential?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Absolutely. This is a real opportunity for the network, and not just for a longer-term contract for more stability. It has the banking framework, which forms its relationship with the banks. The banks have made around £2.5 billion of cost savings through the closure of branches. We think that a greater share of those savings should be provided to the post office network to improve remuneration and invest in productivity tools for postmasters, such as cash-counting machines, so that the job of running a post office is more lucrative. We see that as a big opportunity.

In the banking framework, we have been clear with UK Finance and Post Office that they should be ambitious in negotiations and secure extra remuneration for the network. There were some improvements to remuneration in April, but I am aware, as I speak to postmasters all the time, that those improvements have not gone far enough in their view. I work closely with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, and we hear these views all the time, so we are very alive to the difficulties.

The other big opportunity that the hon. Lady implied is in the increasing number of parcels couriered around our country. There has been an exciting development in the parcels market for the Post Office, which has just launched something called Parcels Online. For the first time, Post Office will offer a multi-carrier in-branch proposition: because the exclusive agreement with Royal Mail has ended, a customer can go into a post office and use the services of DPD, Evri and others, which are being sold by postmasters. That is a great opportunity for postmasters and may well lift their revenue. That is the kind of future we see for post offices: providing access to cash and banking services—and getting paid better and more lucratively to do so—and offering parcel hub opportunities. Those are both really important services.

The hon. Lady mentioned banking hubs. That is a slight bone of contention, in my view. At the moment, they have not really been co-located with post offices, and I would like to explore with UK Finance more opportunities for co-location where space allows. It makes little sense to have two different units on the high street when we could have one really sustainable unit. That is something we are looking at too.

On what the Government can do through direct support, we have provided more than £2.5 billion over the past 10 years and will provide £335 million between 2022 and 2025. We have also provided around £50 million through the annual network subsidy for rural post offices, as well as other measures we provide to the general business community, such as rates support worth £13.6 billion. Another £4.3 billion was announced in the autumn statement.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will come to that later, but I will be supporting the Lords amendments.

There are many good employers who have implemented measures to safeguard their employees. However, far too many have not done enough to prevent and punish sexual harassment.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about an issue that, as she says, has blighted our workplaces. Does she agree that part of the problem is that employers do not act when harassment begins at a low level? Putting workers down, talking over them and belittling them is just the start and it grows from there. Too often in the past, people have just been moved to a different department. Will her Bill put an end to that sort of atmosphere in the workplace?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Yes, it should be the beginning of a culture change to prevent sexual harassment happening before it gets to a point where it has such damaging effects.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in nearly half of cases reported the employer took no action, minimised the incident or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser. What one also finds again and again is that the employer does not really know what to do. When the Bill becomes law, there will be guidance for employers so that they know exactly what is expected of them. That should help organisations to face those problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I do not propose to divide the House today and I am happy that we have got to a place where the Bill has been effectively gutted by their lordships. I am happy with the cross-party consensus on where we have got to. It is right that we have removed the third-party liability, but there is something regrettable about the way this Bill has developed. There was a good moment when, in response to pressure from their lordships, the Government proposed to introduce a new defence against Equality Act harassment, whereby it should be possible to defend a suit on the grounds that there was no intention to injure the injured party, and merely overheard conversations and civil discussions, be they among colleagues or customers, should not be liable to legal action. That was a good step; it developed and improved our equalities law. In response to pressure from the other place, the Government have now withdrawn the third-party liability measure, which is a good thing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) that we are now in a position to abstain from opposing this Bill.

However, we need to debate our equalities framework in this country. Fundamentally, we need to stop bringing forward what I call performative legislation intended simply to outlaw behaviour we disapprove of, immoral conversations, bad manners, and action likely to cause hurt and distress. We cannot legislate against all of those actions and if we try—

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I will be happy to give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. I recognise that we all intend to do the right thing by bringing forward this legislation. I recognise that the Government are trying to do the right thing, as is the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). However, we get into all sorts of trouble when Opposition Members get hold of this sort of law in Committee and when the courts are required to judge on what will necessarily be obscure language about the management of human relations and free speech. The precedent being set by this law is dangerous.

[Christine Jardine]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of the damage that is done in a workplace, which leaves an individual, perhaps a young one in their first employment, feeling undermined, damaged, bullied and harassed, often comes from exactly the sort of casual conversation they overhear in a canteen or in the office? The intent of the Bill was not to be restrictive of people, but to protect young people in the workplace, on whom these things can have a huge impact.

Football and Dementia

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I believe has a wee soft spot for one of the Glasgow teams, and not Partick Thistle.

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important subject, given that so many young people across these islands partake in football-related activity on a regular basis. I thank all Members from across the House for their heartfelt contributions. It is clear that we all love the game of football, but it is also clear that we want improvements in this area for former footballers.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not only on securing such an important debate, but on his informed contribution. He knows, as I do, that this issue is keenly felt in Scotland, with high-profile public campaigns from the families of those affected, as well as world-leading pioneering research carried out in our Scottish universities. Such research undertaken by the University of Glasgow has found that professional footballers are three and a half times more likely to die of neurodegenerative diseases than the general population—three and a half times more likely to die of dementia, Alzheimer’s or other associated diseases. A previous study from the same university in 2021 found that defenders are five times more likely to develop dementia than the general population are.

Those of us who have played the game at any sort of level—competitive or otherwise—or who are just passionate about the sport will know that heading the ball is an art form in itself and an intrinsic part of the game. It is a skill that not many who play the game can fully master: a mighty last-ditch clearance by a committed defender; a leap and flick on to the back post; or my own favourite, the diving header goal—a majestic sight. These studies show us that they are also dangerous. That is why we must be confident that we are doing everything we can to ensure the safety of all the young people who enjoy football today, to protect their health now, in the long term and in later life.

As my right hon. Friend mentioned, Billy McNeill was one such defender—a man with a glittering playing career in the game. He always comes to mind when discussing dementia in football. He was a hero to many, myself included. Born in Bellshill, he was the first man from the United Kingdom to put his hands on the European cup and hold it aloft. He was world-renowned for his heading capabilities. In 2017 his family announced he was suffering from dementia, and in 2019 he sadly passed away. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude to the Billy McNeill Commemoration Committee in Bellshill for the fantastic work it has done and continues to do in raising awareness of Billy’s life and of dementia in football, and in ensuring that the story of the great Billy McNeill will be told for generations to come.

A study published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, jointly funded by the SFA and the Professional Footballers’ Association Scotland, compared the causes of death of more than 7,000 Scottish male former professional footballers born before 1976 against those of more than 23,000 matched individuals from the general population. It was the first to definitively identify a link between football and dementia. Responding to those findings back in 2019, the head of Alzheimer Scotland welcomed the findings of the team led by Dr Willie Stewart, stating that they provided

“what can only be described as conclusive evidence that there is a definitive link between playing professional football and a higher incidence of dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.”

Like many colleagues, I met Tony Higgins of the PFA Scotland—and of Hibernian folklore—here in Parliament a few months back, and heard about the real-life examples of former footballers facing ill health. The PFA Scotland is committed to this issue not only through funding excellent studies such as the one I mentioned, but by investing in long-term aftercare for former footballers and their families, many of whom played the game at the very highest level but in an era that did not bring the financial rewards or comforts that many of today’s players enjoy.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech, among many powerful and important speeches, about a sport that we all love. We have talked a lot about professional and elite football, but when it comes to the young—I declare an interest, as my nephew plays junior football—there is not the same financial reward, but the same danger is involved in heading a football. Do we need to take a much broader approach and ensure that those at all levels, right down to youth football, are encouraged to tell players about the dangers?

[Steven Bonnar]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Boys and girls of five and six in young and junior football are the professional players of tomorrow. We need to protect them right the way throughout their involvement in the game, because that will be for the benefit of all. Football brings so much joy and goodness to our communities—we all know that—but we must safeguard our young players.

A study in Sweden published earlier this year, which has been mentioned, concluded that male football players who had played in the Swedish premier league had

“a significantly increased risk of neurodegenerative disease compared with population controls. The risk increase was observed for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias…and among outfield players, but not among goalkeepers.”

That further solidifies what we know about the game and what the Scottish studies told us. The risks have been known for several years now. Studies as early as 2017 showed the greater risk of dementia among pro footballers, particularly defenders. No time should be wasted in moving forward with further research to properly define the main risk factors and what must be done to minimise them. But we are not much further forward at all from 2017. It is unfortunate that despite evidence having been available on this issue for several years, we are still to see more concrete action taken. There have, of course, been some changes in light of those studies, such as children younger than 11 not being taught to head the ball in training conducted by the SFA, but is that really going far enough? Another way to look at that statistic is that we are still currently allowing children aged 11, 12 and 13 to persistently head the ball in training.

Another progressive step, it could be said, is the introduction of concussion substitutions in the English premier league, a new rule that allows for a permanent substitution to be made if a player suffers a head injury. The new rule was approved in January 2021. So far, I am aware of only one attempted use of the rule so far in England. However, there was an error in the paperwork which meant that the concussion substitute could not in fact be utilised. It was interesting to hear comments about that from Tottenham Hotspur manager, Ange Postecoglou. If we are going to do this right, we must ensure that safety, not paperwork, is the most important thing. I know of no concussion substitutions taking place in Scotland yet, although we have adopted the five substitutions rule—up from the previous three subs per match. That encourages managers to use a substitution should a player take a knock to the head during a match.

Other advice on heading the ball seems to be limited. While lighter footballs are now commonplace, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out, they travel a lot faster and are hit a lot harder in the modern game. We must ensure we do everything we possibly can to protect young individuals now, as well as in later life.

Some campaigners have been calling for a complete ban on the practice of heading the ball to eliminate the increased risk of dementia among footballers. We have all heard about the love we have for the game today. I do not know how that is manageable or workable in the professional game. As I said, heading the ball is an intrinsic part of the match. Some will tell us that rugby, mixed martial arts and boxing also come with heightened health risks—there is the potential for serious injury, and perhaps even fatality. That is undeniable. There must always be a balancing of the sport against the risk. We as legislators and those who govern the game should always seek to make things safer wherever we possibly can.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the hon. Lady may know, our initial consultations closed around the middle of May—9 May to 11 May. Those submissions will now be considered, and we will report back to the House accordingly.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

To be absolutely clear, Lords amendment 2B addresses the concerns that many of us in this place have about the right to strike and how it will be protected. How are the Government going to ensure that these minimum service levels are fair and balanced and do not affect that right to strike?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are very clear that we want to maintain the right to strike. Previous derogations, which we very much appreciate, have not interfered with people making their views known through industrial action. We do not expect that situation to change. As I say, the consultation ran for a good period of time, and the submissions are now being considered. Of course, we want to make sure that people have been properly consulted and that the regulations are fit for purpose.

Pride Month

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. [Interruption.] I heard from a sedentary position that gay parties are the best parties, and I absolutely have to agree. Pride is a celebration. We describe it in many different ways, but we come together and we celebrate, and we are proud of who we are, so I am grateful to him for attending that event in Bracknell and I completely agree.

I also hope that the Government will not be tempted by the calls from some to out trans kids to their parents. I benefited, as I know did so many people who went to school at the same time as me, or before or after, from the safe environment that schools provided to talk about these things without fear of it getting back to a household that may not necessarily be supportive. I was lucky; I was naive at the time when I came out, and I should have known that my parents would be absolutely supportive, which they were, but school provided that safe and non-judgmental environment for me to be able to talk about things, and I know that has been valued by so many others. I understand the need to make decisions about a child’s welfare in correspondence with parents— I do not think anyone objects to that—but the idea of outing trans people to their parents is dangerous, because many families will not be understanding and supportive, sadly. We need to ensure that schools remain a safe place for LGBT+ pupils.

I will touch on the current toxicity around the trans debate—it would be churlish not to talk about it in some detail. Sadly, that toxicity is something that we have had to speak about in Pride debates, and I know that many other colleagues will want to talk about it today. I fear that we as a Parliament, and the institutions we represent, have completely lost control of the conversation, which is being imported from other parts of the world and which often has completely nonsensical and irrelevant arguments brought into it. At its heart is a very vulnerable group of people who are already marginalised and who are now being further demonised and pulled into a national discussion that they did not ask for.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Specifically on that toxic and damaging debate that we have seen in this country, particularly over the past year, does he agree that we have to somehow persuade everyone involved to dial down the rhetoric, to be more reasonable and to listen to one another? I have absolutely no problem personally with gender recognition reform or the legislation that was passed by the Scottish Parliament, but I also understand that there are people with genuine concerns. By not listening to them, we have inadvertently dialled up the toxicity, and the people suffering are the trans community.

[Elliot Colburn]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If we do not dial down the rhetoric, calm that debate down and listen to each other, we will only ever hear those with the loudest voices and those who scream the loudest. The Women and Equalities Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, ran an inquiry on this space not that long ago. One of our conclusions, funnily enough, was that there was a huge amount of agreement, so we were perplexed, when drawing up our conclusions, as to why there should be such anger. It did not seem impossible to us that a way forward could be found, so I hope the Government can update us on what they plan to do to try to dial down the rhetoric in this space.

Sub-postmasters and Sub-postmistresses: Remuneration

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree. I see this process happening and it has not happened suddenly; it has been happening for years. People retire, give up or for whatever reason decide they do not want to continue and nobody comes forward, so the post office remains nominally open, but in fact there is no service in the community—there might be some from another branch or wherever, but frankly the core of what the sub-post office is about is lost.

I think of the example of the post office in the village where I live. It is in the village shop. It was bought recently by somebody who had given up a career—of 51 years, he tells me—in IT, so he was not doing this to increase his income. He has transformed the shop. He has taken what was a good Orkney country shop and brought in a whole range of different fresh foods—Orkney fish, Orkney beef, everything. The quality of what we can get in that shop now is phenomenal, but he tells me it costs him to have a sub-post office counter in the business. It should not be costing somebody like that. That should be something that adds value, but we are seeing the determination and commitment of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses around the country being taken advantage of.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

Oh my goodness! I am spoilt for choice. I give way to all three Members, but very quickly.

[Christine Jardine]

I agree completely with my right hon. Friend: remote areas have been hit hard by the declining number of post offices, but we are also seeing that in cities. One of the problems it brings is that post offices were meant to replace the counter services of many bank branches that have closed, so we have many elderly pensioners who are not online and now have even fewer options for getting their pension or going to the bank.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. I worked alongside my hon. Friend on workers’ rights for many years. I was a care worker for many years, and had to take industrial action once. People, especially in public service, do not do that lightly. The nurses’ union took its first ever industrial action recently. We have seen an unprecedented amount of strike action, and there is an absolute crisis in vacancy numbers in our public services because of this Government. The real risk and danger to public services at the moment is from this Conservative Government. After 13 years in office, they have really run down our public services, and they are not listening to the people who are trying to deliver those services.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the most frustrating things about the Bill, which appears to be totally ineffective, is that the minimum service levels that it sets out are very often not met in normal working times?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member makes a crucial point, which I was trying to make to the Minister: on non-strike days, minimum service levels do not apply at the moment. Many of the people providing our public services are absolutely screaming at the Government, “We need more people working in those services. We are having record vacancies. We are having people leave the profession because of the mismanagement by this Conservative Government.” Take our fire and rescue services: how does the closure of 80 fire stations across the UK keep the public and our brave firefighters safe? Take our precious NHS: how does having 7.3 million patients left on waiting lists keep people safe? And take our overstretched schools: how do record teacher vacancies keep our children safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I am glad that she touched on point that any future Labour Government would repeal this Act. I am just struck, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), by the quote from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who said:

“We can’t come into office, picking through all the conservative legislation and repealing it… It would take up so much parliamentary time. We need a positive agenda.”

If a positive agenda is not standing up for the principle of human rights and democracy, I do not know what is. Perhaps when the Labour Front Bencher sums up at the conclusion of the debate, they will outline exactly how quickly this Bill will be repealed from the statute book, as well as anti-trade union legislation more generally.

As others have done, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Unite trade union, which opposes this Bill, and I am happy to stand in solidarity with it. We are very much beyond the looking glass when it takes Members of the House of Lords to be the people standing up for the principles of democracy and human rights; none the less, I thank their lordships for the amendments they have made to the Bill.

As I was sitting here listening to the Minister opening the debate, I found it rather ironic that we are discussing minimum service levels when the Conservative party’s Back Benchers have literally not turned up for this debate. Other than Bill and Ben, the PPS flower pot men, there are literally no other Conservative MPs here to scrutinise this legislation. If the Government want to talk about minimum service levels, let us have Conservative MPs who campaigned for Brexit by talking about Parliament taking back control coming here to talk about the horrific Henry VIII powers that give unprecedented power to a Secretary of State who would be completely out of control.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned that statistically, when we look at the amount of industrial action that has happened across these islands, Scotland has had the lowest. That is because we take a partnership approach with trade unions. Yes, there are times when the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland will have difficult conversations with trade unions, but by and large we understand that the best way to resolve those disputes is to come to the table, not to use legislation as a way of trying to strike down the trade unions and to big up the likes of Mick Lynch and Sharon Graham as some sort of bogeyman or Grinch. That is exactly what this Bill is designed to do. It is designed to be a wedge issue for the next general election, and that is why it is so important that Labour Members stand up and oppose this Bill, even if they cannot stand on picket lines.

Lords amendment 1 relates to the principle of devolution. I was certainly heartened by what we heard earlier about the opposition to Lords amendment 1, but the reality is that First Minister Humza Yousaf, First Minister Mark Drakeford in Wales and the Governments in both Wales and Scotland have outlined their absolute opposition to this Bill, which we consider to be an affront to democracy and to the basic fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour. That is one reason I would like to see employment law devolved to the Administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It is good enough for Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that because of the territorial application of this Bill, we will find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where healthcare staff who go on strike in Scotland, England and Wales will be subject to the sack, whereas people in Northern Ireland who choose to use their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour will not. For a Government who talk about how important the Union is and how important it is that we do not have divergence of policy, this does rather fly in the face of that argument.

Tonight we will vote against all the Government’s motions on the Lords amendments they are opposing, but when the Bill goes back to the other place, I urge their lordships to hold firm against this Government. They should not give in, because Parliament was told we would be taking back control, and all we are seeing is a Government running out of control and running roughshod over some of our most basic rights. Of course, we were told Brexit was all about strengthening employment rights. The Government talk about that, but what they have brought forward is this tawdry Bill, which once again tramples all over people, just as Thatcher tried to do.

The warning to people in Scotland is that, for so long as they continue to have Conservative Governments they did not vote for—indeed, they have not voted for them since 1955—they will continue to get legislation that tramples on workers’ rights. The only way to protect our Parliament and to protect our workers’ rights is with the powers of independence, not Tories whom we did not elect.

[Christine Jardine]

I rise to support the Lords amendments and to oppose the Government’s intention of rejecting them. I am no longer a trade union member, but I was, so a lot of this Bill offends my belief in the right of the individual to withdraw their labour and the rights of the trade unions.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 would tackle the unfair obligation on the trade unions to ensure that members comply with a work notice. The thought of sacking anyone for going on strike is particularly difficult for me, because I actually have experience of that. I have experience of my husband being sacked, in 1989-90 in Aberdeen, because he went on strike. I know the damage it did to us and to a lot of people’s careers. To take away the right to object to what people believe is an unfair practice or to ask for better pay is, to me, a contravention of rights that people have fought long and hard for in this country. So I will be voting no on those two motions, as will the other Liberal Democrats.

On Lords amendment 1—

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Member is coming on to Lords amendment 1, and I hope she will support that amendment on the Bill’s territorial extent. Has she had time to think further about the earlier point that the logical extension of the Liberal Democrats supporting amendment 1 is the devolution of employment law to Scotland?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but remind him that we are here to discuss this Bill and its implications, which are very serious. Yet again, there is an attempt to divert us on to the constitutional issue, which in this particular instance is not appropriate. Yes, I will be voting against—

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

Not at the moment, thank you. I have not actually finished speaking—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the sake of clarity, may I say that the hon. Lady is absolutely right? This is a very narrow debate on these Lords amendments.

[Christine Jardine]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will tell the House exactly how we are going to vote: we will vote no on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1. Like the Labour party, we are very proud of the devolution settlement in Scotland and the achievement of devolution in Scotland and in Wales, which I would remind SNP Members they actually opposed at the time. They campaigned against it, because they were in favour of independence and did not want devolution, so the commission did not involve them. But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about this Bill.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Christine Jardine]

No, thank you.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed, not least in the fact that it will do nothing to address the current shortfalls in employment in the public sector. It will do nothing to protect the rights of patients in hospitals, which as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, are what the nurses who have been on strike are seeking to protect. It will do nothing to help them.

The arguments against this Bill were rehearsed thoroughly on Second Reading, and I do not want to spend too much time going through them again, but I pay tribute to the Lords for their amendments, which do go some way to addressing the failings that so many of us identified on Second Reading. The Liberal Democrats will be voting no to the Government’s attempts to reject the Lords amendments, because they would improve what is a flawed—I believe, fundamentally flawed—Bill.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

In its original form, this Bill represented what many call a sackers charter, because it was a mishmash of unworkable draconian assault on workers’ rights. I would say it is one of the biggest setbacks for workers’ rights in generations. If it passes, it will shackle trade unions, ordinary workers and a whole list of people struggling for fair wages in so many sectors of our economy. It will place unacceptable restrictions on the fundamental right for workers to withdraw their labour, and to defend their and their colleagues’ pay, which at the moment mostly seems to mean defending themselves from the Government’s inability to offer fair pay rises in so much of our public sector.

Worst of all, particularly in a sector such as the railways, the Bill will worsen industrial relations, create more delays on rail and create a worse situation for passengers. It will worsen industrial relations overall. I note that one union did successfully get a decent pay rise, because the Government clearly could not stomach the fight with it. It was our beloved firefighters who did actually get a decent raise out of this Government.

This Bill is anti-democratic because it gives the Secretary of State enormous power to define and introduce minimum service requirements. It is draconian because, in its original form, workers could be sacked for participating in industrial action supported through their own democratic processes. By the way, with trade unions facing enormous damages, we should bear in mind that they are the biggest voluntary organisation movement in this country, with more than 6 million people, and the majority of the reps do not get a single penny for the trade union work they do.

The Bill is also counterproductive, because the Government’s own analysis says that minimum service levels could lead to more strikes and more non-strike industrial action—in other words, action short of strike—so what on earth is the point of going ahead with it? It is unnecessary to its very core, because it is already custom and practice, especially in the NHS and the blue light services, for cover to be agreed by unions during industrial disputes.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am very happy to say that. I was not involved in negotiations on the Windsor framework, and I have said repeatedly that this is my plan. It is not the Prime Minister’s plan, and it is not the civil servants’ plan—it is my plan. This is me going into the detail and deciding that this is the best way to deliver it. What my hon. Friend says about the special status of EU law is right. That is one of the things that is not changing; that is still ending. The sunset is still there for interpretive effects—for the supremacy of EU law—by the end of this year, which is the big thing we are trying to deliver, rather than lots of redundant regulations, many of which we have already got rid of. I re-emphasise that we will get rid of about 2,000 pieces of legislation in total by the end of this year. The schedule is just the final 600, and another 200 commencement regulations go with them. I think he will be very pleased with the result.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

May I respectfully say to the Secretary of State that I do understand the amendment, and I believe colleagues on both sides of the House understand it? We simply do not agree, and it is an important component of democracy that we respect one another’s right to disagree. If there is any confusion and uncertainty today, it has been caused by the chaotic manner in which this has been done and the fact that the House feels the Secretary of State has had to be dragged here to explain it to us. Does she agree that a situation where the House feels that there will not be an opportunity to debate something as important as this and scrutinise it properly is unacceptable?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I disagree, because we have debated it. The only change is the use of a schedule. The hon. Lady claims that she disagrees with the Bill. The Bill passed through the House. All that is changing is how we are listing the regulations. The intent has not changed. Of course, I respect her right to disagree, but she is still claiming that the amendment does something it does not, which is why I keep emphasising that I am not sure Opposition Members understand it.