Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Debate between Dan Jarvis and Bob Stewart

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 Dan Jarvis and Bob Stewart

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.