Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

This Bill cannot be allowed to fall. It will make a huge difference to the lives of many people in the workplace and will help to provide a cultural shift in attitudes towards appropriate behaviours at work. The Government’s amendment will not impinge on the protections from sexual harassment in the Bill, which will be so important to many women across the country—although of course sexual harassment is not faced only by women. I have also been assured that the amendment should not stop employers prohibiting targeted, indecent or grossly offensive conversations in the workplace, meaning employees will still be protected from third-party workplace harassment.

After taking advice from the Fawcett Society and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I have concluded that I should get behind the Government’s amendments, because the overall aims of the Bill are so important and it is important that it is put into statute. As a Liberal, of course I do not want important political conversation to be shut down in the workplace; people should be free to express an opinion. However, we should be careful to ensure that expressing an opinion does not become a defence for harassment.

I was slightly disappointed that the Government tabled their amendments after Committee had concluded. That led to an enormous rush, and it was quite difficult to consult with everybody, but as I said, I have been assured and have concluded that it is the right way to progress with the Bill, and I support the amendment.

I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the EHRC, which argues that the amendments could be more targeted and limited, and the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, which worries that the amendments risk diluting these changes, which seek to make workplaces safer, fairer and more respectful not just for women but for everybody. I hope the Government will commit to ensuring the Bill’s smooth passage into law, working with all stakeholders who have voiced their concerns.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and the amendments that the Government have tabled, with the support of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I recognise that, despite the Equality Act, we have a significant problem in our culture and our society: too many people are the victim of unacceptable and outrageous harassment, intimidation and abuse in their workplace, particularly sexual harassment. I recognise the powerful points that the hon. Member for Bath made. The problem arises largely because this harassment frequently goes unreported because it is ignored by employers.

We have a significant problem in the culture, so the question arises, what can the law do about it? I want to speak in support of the amendments that the Government have tabled but also raise some concerns about the drift in legislation that we have embarked on. I very much recognise the responsibility that employers have to set the atmosphere and to create the culture.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. At the start of the debate, I indicated very clearly the difference between Report and Third Reading. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak now, he must speak to the amendments. There will be an opportunity to go broader on Third Reading.

[Danny Kruger]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to the amendments, so I will be more specific.

Clause 1 is very helpful, and the amendments support it. I recognise that clause 1 as drafted would have protected Kathleen Stock, the professor at the University of Sussex who was the victim of harassment and intimidation at her university, when the university did not step in to support her. The problem is that it would have also prevented Kathleen Stock from speaking at other universities, because those universities would have insisted that their employees were the victim of harassment or abuse by her presence. We have a real problem with universities gold-plating the Equality Act and other legislation, and their excessive invocation of the Equality Act should not be happening. The problem I have with the clause as drafted is that it would not only have justified but could have necessitated the sort of censorship that we need to be concerned about.

I recognise that the Bill presents a particular challenge to public-facing employers, because it seeks to prevent intimidation on the part of not only fellow employees but members of the public. I am concerned about the concept of “reasonable steps” that employers are expected to take. I am going to make a few absurd suggestions, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to whether the amendments will indeed prevent such scenarios.

Will pubs be expected to put up signs saying, “No banter allowed” in order to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment? The three-strikes rule in the 2010 Act that was repealed in 2013 ensured that what was prohibited was a course of conduct that was harassing. Now employers are expected to head off at the pass any possibility of harassment, because they are liable at the first instance of harassment. Will pubs be required to proactively prevent anything that might constitute harassment? The fact is that a censorious spirit has entered the soul of organisations that hold power and responsibility in our country. We have seen a somewhat absurd instance of that this week with the Welsh rugby stadium banning the singing of the song “Delilah” and the local police chief tweeting his support, as if it is his job to determine what fans sing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Perhaps I could advise the hon. Gentleman that the EHRC will give guidance to employers to help them get through these issues. We are waiting for the guidance, which will be published shortly. I advise him to look at that guidance.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Member for that advice. I will look forward to that guidance, as I have great faith in that commission under its present chair to make sensible guidance.

For the sake of clarity, is it the case that the list of criteria—the eligibility for the law to be triggered—are individual criteria, so that if any of these criteria are not met, then the law does not apply? Or is it that every single one of them must be met for an employer to be exempt from the operations of the Act? I fear that if they are all required to be met, that is a very high bar for employers to get over, and I would rather it was just any of them being met.

I end by expressing my concern about how, increasingly, the spirit of our law is simply declaratory. We decide that something is bad in our society and we pass a law saying that it is bad and that it should not happen, and we expect that to work. What we need to consider in drafting and passing legislation is the actual effect of the law on the people who will be responsible for enforcing it, given the culture and the effect of the culture on the law. The law is a teacher, and we must be aware of the attitudes, the spirits, the fears and the politics, including the increasingly transgressive politics, of people with power our country’s public life and about how they will use the laws that we are passing. In future times, what will be done with laws such as this? I would be grateful to the Minister if she could reassure me on those points.

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for raising those points. The amendments make the case that any harassment must be directed to the employee; it cannot simply be third-party conversations that are overheard. To his specific point, all the conditions must be met for the amendment to be triggered. I recognise that he says that that is a high bar, but that is the case.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s examples, such as whether banter will be banned, I gently say that if it is directed at the employee, that can be sexual harassment. One person’s banter is another person’s harassment, and we need to be mindful of that. The other example that he gave was of a footballer: if the crowd are singing a song or directing a chant, that can be targeted harassment. We have multiple examples of footballers being targeted either because of their race or their colour. That is not acceptable and football clubs take action on that now.

As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, guidance will be issued. We understand that it will be difficult for employers and we know that they need clarity. That is why we have tabled these amendments today. Third-party conversations that are not directed at an employee will be exempt, as is the case if all the conditions in the amendment are met. Direct harassment of an employee, whether that is banter or a song at a football match, is still harassment. That is why we need the Bill.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, page 1, line 2, leave out “of the Equality Act 2010”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 3 and 4.

Amendment 3 , page 1, line 11, at end insert—

“(1C) Subsection (1D) applies if and so far as—

(a) a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment,

(b) the harassment falls within section 26(1) (unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic) and not within section 26(2) or (3) (unwanted conduct of a sexual nature etc),

(c) the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation in which B is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed specifically at B,

(d) the conversation or speech involves the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,

(e) the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive, and

(f) the expression of the opinion does not have the purpose of violating B’s dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(1D) For the purposes of subsection (1A)(b), A is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because A did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.”

This amendment makes provision about when an employer can be held liable for the harassment of their employee by a third party. Its effect is that, where relevant conditions are met, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of opinions in order to avoid liability.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

“(2) In section 109 (liability of employers and principals), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Subsection (4B) applies if and so far as—

(a) A harasses another employee (C) in the course of C’s employment,

(b) the harassment falls within section 26(1) (unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic) and not within section 26(2) or (3) (unwanted conduct of a sexual nature etc),

(c) the conduct constituting the harassment involves a conversation in which C is not a participant, or a speech which is not aimed specifically at C,

(d) the conversation or speech involves the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter,

(e) the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive, and

(f) the expression of the opinion does not have the purpose of violating C’s dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for C.

(4B) For the purposes of the defence in subsection (4), B is not to be treated as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment solely because B did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion.’”—(Wera Hobhouse.)

This amendment makes provision about when an employer can be held liable for the harassment of their employee by another employee. Its effect is that, where relevant conditions are met, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of opinions in order to avoid liability.

Third Reading

[Wera Hobhouse]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has a simple aim: to create respectful workplaces free from harassment where employees feel valued and supported. Today, we can move a step closer to that by creating an employer’s responsibility to clamp down on harassment. I start by thanking the Fawcett Society and the Government Equalities Office officials who have supported me throughout the Bill’s progression. My thanks go also to the Women and Equalities Committee, whose 2018 report into workplace harassment set the wheels in motion for the Bill. There has been vital cross-party support to ensure this important legislation progresses. I hope that spirit of consensus continues today. It will send a clear signal from us here in Parliament that workplace harassment must end.

The Bill focuses on strengthening protections against workplace sexual harassment and introduces protections against more general harassment by third party actors. Workplace sexual harassment is widespread and under-reported. It continues to be a stain on our society. Half of all British women and a fifth of men have been sexually harassed at work or place of study. A TUC survey suggested 79% of women did not report their experience of sexual harassment. Too many people suffer in silence partly because they feel unable to report it. Reporting can have severe career and reputational implications. Employers must shoulder some responsibility for that. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in nearly half of cases where employees made a report, the employer did nothing, minimised the incident, or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser.

The impact of harassment in the workplace has devastating consequences on health, morale, and, last but not least, performance. Current harassment laws mean employers often adopt individualised responses to institutional problems. This allows employers to minimise harassment, causing confusion around appropriate responses. For things to improve, we must shift the focus from redress to prevention. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found in 2018 that a minority of employers had effective processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment. Employers should have a moral and legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment from happening. The Bill will force them to act.

Clause 2 will impose a new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing workplace sexual harassment. It will not require employers to do anything substantially more than what they already should be doing to avoid legal liability for harassment carried out by their employees. However, if employers have failed to take those actions, they could face further enforcement action through an uplift to the total compensation awarded at an employment tribunal, or through the EHRC’s strategic enforcement. That should encourage employers to improve their workplace practices and culture to discourage sexual harassment.

The new duty will operate through dual enforcement. First, the EHRC may take enforcement action for a breach or suspected breach of the duty under its strategic enforcement policy. That would mean employees would be able to inform the EHRC of any concerns without necessarily having to take forward legal action against their employers themselves. Secondly, the employer’s duty will be enforceable by the employment tribunal in individual cases. Where the employment tribunal has found in favour of an individual claim of sexual harassment and has ordered compensation to be paid, the tribunal will examine whether and to what extent the duty has been breached. Where a breach of the duty is found, tribunal judges will have the power to order an uplift of up to 25% of the compensation.

The Bill will also introduce explicit protections against third-party harassment in the workplace—this is where the amendments are most relevant. Clause 1 would make employers liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties such as customers and clients, where they have failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such harassment. These protections will apply to all acts of third-party harassment in the workplace, not just sexual harassment. Once again, there will be a system of dual enforcement.

A claim of third-party harassment could be brought after a single incident of harassment. That replaces the previous three strikes formulation, whereby employers needed to know of two previous incidents of third-party harassment before they could be considered liable. However, liability can arise only if an employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. The Government Equalities Office will support the EHRC in creating a statutory code of practice on sexual harassment and harassment in the workplace, to support employers to implement the changes that will come into force 12 months after Royal Assent.

There is plenty of opportunity for employers to make themselves well informed of the changes and ensure that they can implement them. There will be a consultation as well. There is plenty of time to further consider people’s concerns on all sides. I encourage all Members to make themselves very knowledgeable about the changes and the guidance that will be provided shortly.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. It is important that we trust the organisation that will design the regulations. Does that not mean, if we are essentially outsourcing the definitions that will be implemented under this law, that a future regime at the Equality and Human Rights Commission may come up with different guidance that will be much stricter than what we are passing today?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Perhaps we should trust ourselves a little more. This Bill is not about heavy penalties on people but about creating workplaces where everybody feels valued. I am sure that everybody across this House will support that. That is the aim of the Bill, not to create huge penalties for employers now.

We all need to acknowledge where harassment takes place. As we heard from the Minister, we all need sometimes to recognise that someone’s banter is another person’s harassment. To create and develop sensitivity to how people feel about things, and to have conversations in the workplace where we can be open to talk about these things, will lead to the workplace that I would like to see in future. I have some confidence that in the end, we will all be supportive of that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will be addressed; he will see the guidance that is being created and that it is about all reasonable steps being taken. It is, in many ways, about common sense—what is a reasonable step and what is an unreasonable step. I am sure that we can all move forward together.

There is plenty of time to look at the code of practice. I encourage everyone to make themselves knowledgeable. It will be based on the technical guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission published 2020, and will be introduced as the new legislation comes into force. The EHRC will have a duty to consult on the code of practice in advance. In the meantime, the Government’s Equalities Office has produced guidance, which they will publish in due course.

The Government tabled amendment 3 to clause 1, which means that, where harassment relates to a protected characteristic, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of an opinion to avoid liability, where certain conditions are met. The conditions are where the harassment involves a conversation in which the claimant is not a participant, or a speech that is not aimed specifically at them; where the conversation or speech contains the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter; where the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive; and where the harassment is not intentional. The amendment will not apply in cases of sexual harassment.

Workplace harassment should be seen as an epidemic, and it is time that we treat it in that way. During flu season, employers do not wait for employees to get sick: they proactively invest in and implement evidence-based prevention measures to keep workplaces healthy and productive. This Bill encourages the same focus on prevention to tackle harassment. I therefore call on the House to support my Bill, which will enshrine in law historic measures to protect employees against workplace harassment.

Vaccines: Potential Harms

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those who feel that they have been damaged by the vaccine should of course have the full support of their elected Members of Parliament and the NHS. Only a couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed by a journalist from a major news outlet who said that he was being bombarded by calls from people who said that they were vaccine-harmed but unable to get the support they wanted from the NHS. He also said that he thought this would be the biggest scandal in medical history in this country. Disturbingly, he also said that he feared that if he were to mention that in the newsroom in which he worked, he would lose his job. We need to break this conspiracy of silence.

It is instructive to note that, according to pharmaco-vigilance analysis, the serious adverse effects reported by the public are thought to represent only 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events occurring within the population. The gold standard of understanding the benefit and harm of any drug is the randomised controlled trial. It was the randomised controlled trial conducted by Pfizer that led to UK and international regulators approving the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine for administration in the first place.

Contrary to popular belief, that original trial of approximately 40,000 participants did not show any statistically significant reduction in death as a result of vaccination, but it did show a 95% relative risk reduction in the development of infection against the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual was only 0.84%. In other words, from its own data, Pfizer revealed that we needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. The World Health Organisation and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have previously stated and made it clear that it is an ethical responsibility that medical information is communicated to patients in absolute benefit and absolute risk terms, which is to protect the public from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.

Very quickly, through mutations of the original strain—indeed, within a few months—covid fortunately became far less lethal. It quickly became apparent that there was no protection against infection at all from the vaccine, and we were left with the hope that perhaps these vaccines would protect us from serious illness and death. So what does the most reliable data tell us about the best-case scenario of individual benefit from the vaccine against dying from covid-19? Real-world data from the UK during the three-month wave of omicron at the beginning of this year reveals that we would need to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 to prevent one death. The number needed to be vaccinated to prevent a death in any younger age group was absolutely enormous.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. It is a very important debate that we should be having. He is talking about the relative risks for different cohorts of the population. He will remember that, when the vaccine was first announced, the intention was that it would be used only for those who were vulnerable and the elderly because, as he says, the expectation was that the benefit to younger people was minor. Does he agree that it would be helpful for the Minister to explain to us why the original advice that the vaccines would be rolled out only for the older population, and would not be used for children in particular, was laid aside and we ended up with the roll-out for the entire population, including children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly this is related to all mRNA vaccinations. He will be well aware that many of us have had the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has effectively been withdrawn because of health concerns. Indeed, I will declare to the House that I am double-vaccinated with AstraZeneca, which has now been withdrawn.

Ministers may understandably wish to defer the responsibility for a decision such as withdrawing vaccines from the population to regulators such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or in America the Food and Drug Administration. Historically, when undertaking the approval of any drug, the regulators ultimately end up relying on the summary results from the drug companies in their sponsored trials, where the raw data is kept commercially confidential. Furthermore, the MHRA has a huge financial conflict of interest, receiving 86% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate. In effect, we have the poacher paying the gamekeeper.

In a recent investigation by The BMJ into the financial conflicts of interest of the drug regulators, the sociologist Donald Light said:

“It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organisation independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data.”

He went on to say that doctors and patients

“must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.”

Similarly, another investigation revealed that members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had huge financial links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation running into billions of pounds. Ministers, the media and the public know that the foundation is heavily invested in pharmaceutical industry stocks.

Unfortunately, the catastrophic mistake over the approval, and the coercion associated with this emergency-use authorisation medical intervention, are not an anomaly, and in many ways this could have been predicted by the structural failures that allowed it to occur in the first place. Those shortcomings are rooted in the increasingly unchecked visible and invisible power of multinational corporations—in this case, big pharma. We can start by acknowledging that the drug industry has a fiduciary obligation to produce profit for its shareholders, but it has no fiduciary obligation to provide the right medicines for patients.

The real scandal is that those with a responsibility to patients and with scientific integrity—namely, doctors, academic institutions and medical journals—collude with the industry for financial gain. Big pharma exerts its power by capturing the political environment through lobbying and the knowledge environment through funding university research and influencing medical education, preference shaping through capture of the media, financing think-tanks and so on. In other words, the public relations machinery of big pharma excels in subterfuge and engages in smearing and de-platforming those who call out its manipulations. No doubt it will be very busy this evening.

It is no surprise, when there is so much control by an entity that has been described as “psychopathic” for its profit-making conduct, that one analysis suggests that third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer is the side effects of prescribed medications, which were mostly avoidable. Because of those systemic failures, doctors often receive biased information, deliberately manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry, which exaggerates the benefits and the safety of their drugs. Furthermore, the former editor of The BMJ, Richard Smith, claims that research misconduct is rife and is not effectively being tackled in the UK institutions, stating:

“Something is rotten in…British medicine and has been for a long time”.

It has also been brought to my attention by a whistleblower from a very reliable source that one of these institutions is covering up clear data that reveals that the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries. It is covering this up for fear that it may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The lead of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation, and I am disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that this important data never sees the light of day. That is an absolute disgrace. Systemic failure in an over-medicated population also contributes to huge waste of British taxpayers’ money and increasing strain on the NHS.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is being very good with his time. I just want to call his attention to some research, since I chair the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence. He refers to the waste of money; there is £500 million being spent every year by the NHS on prescribed drugs for people who should not be on those habit-forming pills, causing enormous human misery as well as waste for the taxpayer.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a point that only reinforces the items in my speech that the public need to know. I thank him again for his support.

We need an inquiry into the influence of big pharma on medications and our NHS. That is been called for many occasions and by some very influential people, including prominent physicians such as the former president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to our late Queen, Sir Richard Thompson. On separate occasions in the last few years those calls have been supported and covered in the Daily Mail, The Guardian and, most recently, The i newspaper.

We are fighting not just for principles of ethical, evidence-based medical practices, but for our democracy. The future health of the British public depends on us tackling head-on the cause of this problem and finding meaningful solutions. In 2015 a commentary by Richard Houghton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature “may simply be untrue”. He wrote that

“science has taken a turn toward darkness”,

and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system.

That first step could start this evening with this debate. It starts here, with the vaccine Minister and the Government ensuring in the first instance an immediate and complete suspension of any more covid vaccines with their use of mRNA technology. Silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus itself, and now so should courage be. I would implore all the scientists, medics, nurses and those in the media who know the truth about the harm these vaccines are causing to our people to speak out.

We have already sacrificed far too many of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed. Last week the MHRA authorised those experimental vaccines for use in children as young as six months. In a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago, I quoted a report by the Journal of the American Medical Association studying the effect of the covid-19 mRNA vaccination on children under five years of age. It showed that one in 200 had an adverse event that resulted in hospitalisation, and symptoms that lasted longer than 90 days.

As the data clearly shows to anyone who wants to look at it, the mRNA vaccines are not safe, not effective and not necessary. I implore the Government to halt their use immediately. As I have demonstrated and as the data clearly shows, the Government’s current policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, it is on the wrong side of scientific data, and ultimately it will be on the wrong side of history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not. I have just three minutes to respond to the many points that my hon. Friend made.

It is important to put on the record that all the vaccines used in the UK are safe, and we have some of the highest safety standards in the world, with the MHRA globally recognised for requiring high standards of safety. I have worked in clinical research, and I can say categorically that the data is not hidden from the public or the MHRA; it is inspected rigorously and can be reinspected at any time.

Each of our covid vaccine candidates is assessed by a team of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis, and it is only once a potential vaccine has met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality that it is approved for use. That is the case for all medicines, not just covid vaccines. Extensive data shows that the vaccine is safe and highly effective in reducing the deaths that we sadly saw during the pandemic. That does not end when the vaccine is approved; surveillance of vaccines continues, as it does with any medicine, and any adverse reaction is recorded on a regular basis. That does not stop following approval.

My hon. Friend talked about the yellow card reports. Those have been in place for many years. Anyone who has a side effect from any medicine can make a yellow card report. When I was first starting out in nursing, that was a physical yellow card; it is now online. Anyone can submit any suspected adverse drug reaction. The MHRA will collate and review them, and it has in the past gone on to suspend the licence of a medicine if it has concerns. That is something that it can do for any vaccine, including any covid vaccine.

The nature of the yellow card reporting system means that some reported events are not always proven side effects. A side effect can be reported; the MHRA will then go and look to see whether it is actually related to that medicine, and there is a list of probabilities of how likely it is that the side effect is related to that medicine. There is comprehensive surveillance to alert us to any unforeseen adverse reactions to vaccines and to enable us to act swiftly when required.

We know that there are some circumstances where individuals have sadly experienced harm with a possible link to a vaccination. I recognise how difficult that is for those individuals and their families. We have put measures in place to monitor any possible side effects and to commission further research that will help us better understand how to diagnose and treat those who have suffered or continue to suffer any ill effects from a covid-19 vaccine. That is the case for any medicine—even with a simple medicine such as paracetamol, people can get side effects—and that is why every medicine that is prescribed and dispensed has a patient safety information sheet listing the most likely side effects and encouraging people to report any that may not be included.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will give way quickly, because I have only a couple of minutes.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful. The Minister’s predecessor had asked the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to review the evidence behind the decision to roll out the vaccine to children. Can she update the House or write to us to explain where that review has got to? Does she agree that the JCVI should be looking at the vaccination of children?

Dormant Assets Funding: Community Wealth Funds

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). I am in a Stoke sandwich, between her and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), which is very nice—I do not know where Kidsgrove and Talke is today.

I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) is not with us today. Sadly, he has suffered a bereavement. I want to put on record my appreciation for his leadership and the strong role he plays in this place in the campaign for a community wealth fund. I also pay tribute to Local Trust, some of the staff of which I suspect are watching. That brilliant organisation has promoted this proposal from outside Parliament.

I think we all recognise that this is a cross-party proposal. I agree with much of what we just heard from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I do not think that a community wealth fund requires a Labour Government, nor would it prosper only under a Labour Government. This is about getting the great mission of community development, levelling up or economic prosperity—whatever we want to call it—out of the political cycle and out of the hands of central Government. It is a tremendous measure that is in exactly that spirit.

My work outside politics was mostly in charities. I found that the most effective aspect of our work is not about the type of service that is delivered—not the “what”—but it is about the “how” and the “who” that do it. It is the quality and nature of the service that matter. What is crucial is giving people a sense of belonging and agency. That is what we need. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made a very good point about the importance of treating people not as passive recipients of services but as active agents in their own lives and their own prosperity. The idea of a community wealth fund speaks to that, and would strengthen that spirit across the country.

I echo the point my hon. Friend made about people stepping up, establishing mutual aid groups and taking responsibility for neighbours during in the pandemic. It is not unfair to say that, in a sense, it was easy then: people were being paid to stay at home, so they could take part in their communities. The need was obvious—people who were isolating needed to be delivered food and medicines—and the demand was short term, only a few months at a time. However, before and subsequently, and increasingly because of the effect of the pandemic and all the lockdowns, we have long-term, wicked, entrenched problems and people who are very overstretched. We do not have the capacity in our communities that we had during lockdowns.

We need to build our social infrastructure. That was the key recommendation of the report that I wrote for the Government in 2020 on how we might build on the community spirit that the lockdown had brought forth. The answer is quite simply that we need to create the conditions in which people can be good neighbours and that means creating social infrastructure.

We can do a lot with policy. This is not the moment for the discussion about how we reform public services and local government, but there is one big thing we can do. I know the Minister has been harassed and harangued on this topic by many of us over many months. He has taken it with great patience and I hope he is not going to suddenly flip and say “Ah, no!” to us at the end of the process, because we have lobbied very hard. The big idea is that we establish a great new national endowment for our communities—a community wealth fund, which would support those non-commercial or sub-commercial activities that are so essential to local growth, including parks and libraries, arts and sports centres, facilities for the elderly and for the young and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central says, social enterprises and community businesses. We need to develop the capacity of local places.

I will end with one more observation. It is not enough to provide the money; we need also to ensure that communities have the capacity to bid for it, plan the services and then run the services themselves, so there is a capacity-building element in this. I pay tribute to the people who are trying to develop Community First, a model based on Teach First that gives people the opportunity straight out of university to become community organisers in an area of the UK and to develop their skills that way. Creating more opportunities for community organising will be helpful. We need to build social capital, Madam Chair, and even if financial capital is all you care about, which I am sure it is not, the evidence is that social capital is what drives economic growth and not the other way round. So we need to invest in the infrastructure of our communities and our proposal will do that.

International Men’s Day

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Gentleman is an expert in this area, and I absolutely agree with him. It would be good if the Government could look at that issue—hence me raising it in this debate. Societal beauty standards are different for men, and while thinness might be an aspirational expectation set through the media for women, for men it generally is not. For men there is an image of fitness and muscular build, which means that often those signs in men are not recognised.

Eating disorders are indiscriminate when it comes to gender. There are many, and while anorexia is of course devastating, there is also bulimia and compulsive eating. Those disorders can ravage the body, but they also have an extreme detrimental effect on the mind. Although research on eating disorders in men is inconsistent, having only really begun in recent years, there are some figures that might illustrate how much more prevalent such disorders are than many of us realise. A 2021 study by Beat estimated that approximately 1.25 million people in the UK have an eating disorder. The same survey estimated that about 25% of those people are male. That is tens of thousands of men and boys suffering with these conditions, and struggling to access the right support. Some of those males may not even realise that they have an eating disorder.

Two big issues are at play, and both come down to eating disorders being viewed as a “female” problem. First is the social stigma and difficulty that men experience in recognising that they have an eating disorder and in seeking help. Anorexia, for example, is often seen as a problem caused by vanity, which is not only untrue but a simplistic and narrow view of an unbelievably complex disease. The social stigma attached to male mental health is huge, and the less such issues are spoken about, the more isolating and shameful it can feel. Secondly, as a result, men and boys will hide their feelings, and they will not proactively seek help. With the NHS as stretched as it is, and because eating disorders are more commonly recognised in women, health professionals are less likely to spot the signs in men.

I referred to the body ideal for men as being seen as muscular, and I want to touch on muscle dysmorphia, a form of body dysmorphic disorder, which has a higher incidence in men. Sometimes referred to as “reverse anorexia”, muscle dysmorphia is defined by being preoccupied by worries that one’s body is too small or not muscular enough, despite having a normal build, or in many cases an objectively extremely “buff” physique. It is basically a completely distorted view of their body. Although muscle dysmorphia has some overlap with eating disorders, it is not one, but the fixation on that body type, and the steps men take when pursuing it, can lead to unhealthy eating habits, strict dieting, and develop into an eating disorder. Media and pop culture, magazines, TV and computer games all perpetuate that imagery and stereotype, which is unnecessary and only feeds into a hyper-masculine cultural ideal that is harmful to men and boys in somany ways.

The occurrence of eating disorders in men and boys is closely linked to a number of other mental health conditions. Risk factors include depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder and mood disorders. One study showed that men with eating disorders are twice as likely to have comorbid substance abuse issues, misusing drugs such as cocaine or stimulants for their appetite-suppressing side effects. That is a monumental issue for the men experiencing those problems. It needs better recognition.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Member highlighting the terrible crisis and tragedy of male eating disorders. Does she share my concern not only that insufficient attention is given to men and boys who suffer from eating disorders but that we are not generally good as a society at supporting those people who have been through the acute phase of an eating disorder—they may have got their weight back —to recover? We are better at that post-acute rehabilitation phase with girls and young women, but we are terrible at that with boys and men.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Yes, that rehabilitation stage does need to be better and include men and boys, not just women. As I said, this is a monumental issue for the men experiencing these problems. It needs better recognition, and they need better help.

I mentioned obsessive compulsive disorder, which, as with most mental health issues, affected men do not find easy to talk about. Representations of it in the media have often presented it as quirky or comical. It is also trivialised: how many times have we heard someone say light-heartedly, “I’m really OCD about that” when talking about keeping their desk neat or their kitchen clean? However, OCD is a serious mental health concern. Like many others, it has a spectrum of severity, with some people experiencing milder symptoms whereas, for others, the constant intrusive thoughts can really limit quality of life. It is not just rituals like those we see on TV of switching on a light exactly ten times. All these traits are common. It is also about feeling completely unable to control the brain’s darkest thoughts and worst fears until they are all-consuming and nothing can be done to stop it.

OCD often has a distinct thought pattern, with obsession, anxiety, compulsive behaviours and temporary relief. It is a cycle that repeats and is commonly comorbid with anxiety, depression and eating disorders. Most people with OCD say that their compulsions are irrational or illogical, but still they feel an overwhelming need to act on them just in case. Because of its perception in the media and more widely, it is another condition that men struggle to admit experiencing. Many see it as shameful or a weakness.

People with OCD and depression will often experience suicidal ideation. I therefore want to reflect on the links to eating disorders, suicide and male mental health in general. There are organisations who can help support those who think they may have an eating disorder. I encourage anyone who thinks that they might—or if they know someone who might—to take a look at Beat’s website, where there is lots of good information. Its national helpline is open 365 days a year to offer swift help and advice.

It is so hard for many men to break down the barriers to accessing the right mental health support. As a society, we need to do better at looking at the men in our lives and letting them know that it is okay to need some help. In fact, it is normal.

Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Australia

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Let me be absolutely clear that we are not lowering our food import standards as a result of this deal. We are absolutely maintaining that, so no hormone-injected beef will be allowed into the United Kingdom. Let me just be clear: all of the questions coming from the Opposition side of the House seem to imply that we need regulatory harmonisation with everybody we trade with. That is the EU model; we have left the EU. We believe that other countries should be in charge of their own rules and regulations, and we should have the sovereignty to set our own rules and regulations. What Opposition Members seem to be arguing for is global regulatory harmonisation.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]]

My constituency of Devizes is home to some of the best farmers in the world, including the current Farmers Weekly beef farmer of the year, James Waight of Enford farm, so I am very positive about the opportunities for more exports of Wiltshire produce, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on concluding this deal. However, I am even more positive about the opportunity for our farmers to have a bigger share of the UK market. We already import three quarters of the food we eat in this country, and to my mind that is too much, so can she reassure me that this deal will not under-cut farmers in Wiltshire with cheap, low-quality imports?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I know my hon. Friend believes in both beef and liberty, and I can assure him that that is exactly what this deal delivers. There are huge opportunities overseas for our beef farmers, and that is what we are seeking to open up, of course. We opened up the US market last year, and we now have beef going from England, Wales and Northern Ireland into the United States. I agree with him: I think there are huge opportunities for our farmers, freed from the common agricultural policy, which has held them back, and with a new pro-animal welfare, pro-environment policy here in the United Kingdom.