Public Bodies (Diversity)
Diane Abbott Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a separate debate to be had about the effectiveness of creating of an independent body. Ministers, however, can still take responsibility and I will come on to discuss how the previous Government had targets for public appointments, which I think made a big and important difference at the very highest levels of every Department.
As I was saying, it was acknowledged last year that the pace of change was too slow, yet a year on it is slower still. Last year, the inclusion think tank Diversity UK, led by Dilip Joshi, Lopa Patel and Sushila Khoot—long-standing campaigners for equality of opportunity—undertook a survey to investigate what was happening behind the statistics and launched the findings at an event that I attended and at which there was cross-party representation.
The survey collected the views of ethnic minority individuals and found that the majority of respondents had not applied for a public appointment despite being aware of such appointments and despite 60% of them expressing a wish to apply in the future. When people were asked why they had not applied, their reasons were varied. They did not feel that they were qualified enough or that they had the right skills, which are common responses to surveys looking at people who are under-represented in different organisations and bodies. Other reasons cited for detracting 68% of respondents from applying for a public appointment included the requirement for sector-specific and previous board-level experience and—this is a very important point—little or no feedback from the process and a lack of cultural awareness from executive recruitment consultants. However, respondents also saw the positive opportunity that public appointments can provide with regard to benefiting society and playing a part in our community and national life.
The survey was circulated to approximately 1,500 senior- director level individuals, and the findings suggest a widening “aspiration gap” between the leaders in business and society and the leaders of our public institutions.
In 2003, Trevor Phillips, the then head of the Commission for Racial Equality, coined the phrase “snowy peaks syndrome” to help explain a phenomenon in the civil service. He said we should think of Whitehall as a mountain range: at the base of each mountain, we might find large numbers of women and ethnic minorities, whereas at the summit we will find a small amount of white, middle class men.
Today, more than a decade later, snowy peaks can still be found in many parts of our society, including the public sector. We see it in the NHS, where only 1% of chief executives are from BME groups even though BMEs make up more than 15% of the health service work force.
The Government have done some important work on improving the representation of women on boards in the private sector, but diversity, as I have said, goes wider than gender, and the public sector remains vital, too. Fourteen per cent. of the UK population is made up of ethnic minority individuals and it is time that the Government demonstrated greater leadership on the issue.
Just last month, new research on the corporate sector revealed the widening aspiration gap, with two thirds of FTSE 100 companies still having an all-white executive leadership. Only 10 ethnic minority individuals hold the post of chairman, chief executive or finance director, which is equivalent to 3.5% of roles at that level. A diversity deficit clearly exists in the corporate sector, as it does in the public sector. That deficit also contributes to the lack of growth in developing economies across the world, where our diaspora communities and diversity at board level make a huge difference in building relationships.
The disappointment is that we are still discussing this issue today, when we would have hoped that many of the barriers to the progress of ethnic minority individuals in Britain had been removed. What are the solutions? Lopa Patel of Diversity UK has stated:
“To have declining BME representation at senior levels in the corporate and public sector at a time when BME numbers are increasing in the general population is indicative of failings in the process.”
I agree with the sentiment that the Government must do more to identify and remove what might be institutional discrimination.
It is precisely because of the need to address both demand and supply side issues in the appointments process that the previous Labour Government brought in important reforms and set targets for 50% of new appointments to be women by 2015, and for appointments of BME people and those with disabilities to be in line with their representation in the population. The targets may have been ambitious, but they made a statement and gave a sense of urgency about the need for reform.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has the number of people in the BME population gone up, but their level of education and their role among the professions are unrecognisable from when I was a child, which makes it even worse that the number of such people at senior levels is dropping?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It goes back to the heart of the issue, which is that, as we all believe, appointments should be made on merit. It is about whether there is a gap between those with the talent, expertise and desire to be able to reach those appointments and their actually achieving that through the appointments process. The very heart of the issue is whether our system and processes are fair and bring in talent fairly in the way that we need.
Since this Government came to power, targets for those with disabilities or those from ethnic minorities have been removed. The gender target has been kept in the Cabinet Office diversity strategy, but it is now described as an aspiration.
Diversity UK sent its survey findings to all major Departments and requested meetings with Ministers to discuss the issues, but the response was mixed. Imagine its surprise at receiving rejection letter after rejection letter, with Ministers citing lack of time as the reason for not agreeing to meetings. The Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office welcomed meetings to discuss the findings, but meetings were declined by, among others, the Prime Minister’s office, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Department for Education. Increasing representation is a complex issue, with no easy answers, but one thing is clear: it requires leadership from the top, particularly to give candidates the confidence to put themselves forward and the belief that it is worth the time and effort to do so.
May I ask the Minister to answer the following questions? Will he confirm which diversity targets for new public appointments are in place, and whether they are for increasing representation by gender, ethnicity and disability? What guidance is given to Departments on their recruitment processes, and on how to increase the diversity of suitable candidates at the application stage? What reviews are being undertaken of how effectively Departments recruit, and what powers does OCPA have to challenge those that do not perform well? What message is given to the head-hunters or search agencies selected to assist in recruitment, and to what extent is producing a more diverse range of suitable candidates stipulated in any contract? How are permanent secretaries held to account for their progress on diversity in public appointments? Are public appointment opportunities promoted at every level in our communities in order to reach a more diverse segment of the British public?
Finally, does he think that public bodies are using executive recruitment agencies effectively, and do those agencies have more knowledge of BME communities and how to reach them than public bodies and Departments have through their networks?
The Diversity UK report showed that respondents simply want a level playing field and a strong referee on this issue. The survey supported the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and its independent assessors in providing those tools.
Our country is admired the world over for its openness, its sense of liberty and the opportunity that it offers all people. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to hearing how he sees us achieving greater diversity in public appointments, which is vital in ensuring that we deliver the public services that all parts of our communities need and in providing a greater sense of opportunity for all the British public.
Mr Hurd
The system is independently regulated and I will come on to that. There is more transparency in the process and that is an issue my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has placed at the top of the Government’s agenda. My experience is that this is more actively monitored and more transparent than it has been in the past.
There was a debate on whether the process benefits from independent regulation, overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I think it does. It is key in supporting the merit principle, rather than other factors that might determine appointments. All panels have an independent member, who for chair appointments will be nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That is a welcome initiative. The Centre for Public Appointments, which is part of the Cabinet Office, is working across Whitehall, and with the executive search industry, to make practical steps that will help us to open up public appointments to the widest possible pool. I will provide three examples.
First, we are modernising the recruitment process to ensure that adverts are effective and non-exclusive, and that interview panels are diverse and reappointments are made only in cases of utmost necessity. No one seriously disagrees that appointments should not be made on the basis of merit, but talented people often do not apply for public appointments either because they do not know about them, or because they do not recognise what they have to offer. We are placing greater emphasis on ability rather than experience, because we do not want to exclude those who may not yet have acquired board experience but could nevertheless potentially be good board members.
Secondly, there is nothing more off-putting than an unnecessarily long application process, so Departments are increasingly switching to using a straightforward CV and covering letter. We are working to simplify job adverts and are cutting out jargon to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
Thirdly, we are maximising the use of online and targeted advertising, and social media. Two years ago, the CPA did not even have a website, let alone a Twitter account. Now the former has more than 20,000 visits a month and the latter has 1,600 followers. These are sensible measures and independent regulation is important.
On the representation of women and BME communities, progress has been made, particularly in relation to women. The rise of women in the public sector during the 20th-century was agonisingly slow. We should not forget that until 1947, women in the civil service were still expected to resign when they married. They earned less than men into the 1950s. Indeed, when Dame Mary Smieton was appointed as permanent under-secretary at the Department for Education in 1953—only the second woman to reach this grade—she was paid the same as a man. It would be nice to think that that was because her Department was an early advocate of equal pay—it was not—but the Treasury had not worked out a women’s rate of pay at that grade because it did not think that it would ever need to. This is where we have come from. Thankfully, much has changed and continues to improve, both in the civil service, where 47% of employees are currently women, and across the wider public sector, where women continue to shatter glass ceilings. For example, the RAF has recently appointed its second female Air Vice-Marshal.
Significant areas for improvement remain. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, perhaps foremost among them is the number of women on public sector boards. Women remaining a minority in the boardroom—or worse, where all-male boards persist—becomes more and more of an anachronism every year that passes. In the last financial year, only 37% of public board members were women. I believe that transparency is one of the best ways to raise performance. This was the first year that the Government published their own statistics on the general diversity of appointments, something I hope the hon. Lady welcomes.
Ms Abbott
The Minister is of course the second generation of Hurd to serve in this House, but we know he is there on merit alone and we all believe in merit. However, does he not believe that, in 21st-century Britain, it is very important for public boards and the top of the public sector to look like Britain?
Mr Hurd
I hesitate to correct the hon. Lady, because the correction will not help my case, but I am actually the fourth successive generation of my family to serve in the House. However, I am increasingly, and thankfully, an anachronism. The hon. Lady’s point is entirely valid.
The issue of transparency is particularly important. The message that I am trying to convey to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, and to other Members, is that we are making some progress. In the first six months of the current financial year, the number of women on boards rose to 45%. That constitutes real progress.
Oral Answers to Questions
Diane Abbott Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, 290 homes have been flooded so far in Bournemouth and the Dorset area. I agree with him that the work of the emergency services and the Environment Agency has been excellent. Many local authorities, including my own, have developed very good plans and carried them out very competently. However, not every authority is doing so well, and there will be lessons to be learnt.
As for the Bournemouth and Poole area, about £14 million will be invested over the next five years under the Bournemouth beach management scheme. That should protect about 2,500 properties by 2018-2019, but I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend what more he thinks can be done.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Q3. The Prime Minister will be aware that the majority of new housing benefit claimants are in work. He will also be aware that private sector landlords are increasingly refusing to take tenants who are on benefit, or are evicting them. What does he say to hard-working families who face losing their homes because of his housing benefit cuts?
The Prime Minister
What we say to hard-working families is, “We are cutting your taxes.” In April this year, we will raise to £10,000 the amount of money that people can earn before they start paying income tax, and I think that that will make a big difference. For instance, someone earning the minimum wage and working a 40-hour week will see his or her tax bill fall by two thirds.
However, we must take action to deal with the housing benefit bill. Housing benefit now accounts for £23 billion of Government spending. When we came to office, some families in London were receiving housing benefit payments of £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] Members shout “How many?” Frankly, one was too many, and that is why we have capped housing benefit.
Tributes to Nelson Mandela
Diane Abbott Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The fact that the House of Commons has spent the whole day paying tribute to Nelson Mandela is, of course, a tribute to the man himself, but it is also a tribute to the thousands of Africans who struggled for their freedom. It is a tribute to activists such as Steve Biko, it is a tribute to the ANC and to the ANC in exile, but it is also a tribute to the thousands of ordinary people in, I believe, all our constituencies who stood on street corners and campaigned over the decades to make the release of Nelson Mandela possible.
I will always remember where I was when I saw Nelson Mandela being released from prison, hand in hand with Winnie Mandela. I also remember the BBC newscaster who was doing the bulletin. It was a friend of mine and one of the most loved newscasters, Moira Stuart. I shall never forget that, because the struggle against apartheid and the struggle to free Nelson Mandela were part of the warp and weft of my life as a young activist in the late 1970s and 1980s. There were the meetings, there were the pickets, there was the examination of the oranges to make sure they were—[Laughter]—I think that a lot of us have been there—and there were the donations. For a certain generation, that was the iconic international struggle. There were times when we thought that it was no more than a struggle and Nelson Mandela could not be released, so seeing those television pictures of him hand in hand with Winnie was an extraordinary experience for me.
We have heard some brilliant speeches today. The former leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard him make, and I have heard him make some brilliant speeches since I was first a Member of Parliament in the 1980s. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) made a very impressive speech, reminding us that Mandela was a politician first and last, and reminding us also of the importance of the practice of politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who was one of the heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle—it might be said that that was his finest hour—told us about his childhood and his family, and presented a touching vignette of Winnie Mandela leaning down to kiss two white children.
Let me say a little about Winnie Mandela. She did terrible things and terrible things were done in her name, but no one who was active in the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s will forget her courage and beauty when she was at the height of her powers. She endured long years in internal exile; she endured 18 months of solitary confinement, parted from her children; she endured beatings, and the blowing up and killing of her friends and comrades around her. As I have said, she did terrible things, but we cannot take away the fact that at the height of the anti-apartheid struggle, she was a transcendent figure.
We have heard about Nelson Mandela and his achievements today. I remember seeing him on his first visit to the United Kingdom. The extraordinary thing about him was not just his presence and charisma, but the fact that there was no sense of the bitterness that he was entitled to feel after spending 28 years in prison and seeing what had happened to his friends and family. As we have heard, it was that nobility of purpose that enabled him—it was his signal contribution—to drive through a peaceful transition to majority rule without the bloodshed that so many people prophesied. He also stood down after one term. If only more leaders in countries around the world were prepared to do as he did and let go of power.
We live in an era that despises politicians, in which the word “political” is practically a term of abuse. We live in an era when too many young people believe that voting changes nothing, but I was privileged to be an election observer for those very first elections in which black people could vote. I remember leaving the centre of Johannesburg and driving all the way up to Soweto, on the edge of the city. We got there for 6 o’clock, but people had been queuing for hours. When the polling station opened, I saw figure after figure go into the polling station, mark the very long and complicated ballot paper and then step to the ballot box. Many of them looked around as they did so, as if even then someone would say, “Not you, you’re not allowed to vote.” It was being an observer at those elections that taught me the value of the ballot—that people can struggle and die for the right to vote.
Nelson Mandela and anti-apartheid resonated with me as a young black woman just getting active in politics. The anti-apartheid struggle taught me that I was part of something international, and that politics was in the end about moral purpose. It taught me that if you believe in something, you should push on, because evil cannot stand. There is no more respected politician among young people in the UK than Nelson Mandela. It is a privilege to be allowed to speak today, and if people would only believe what Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid struggle believed—that you can alter your reality and it is worth getting involved in the struggle and understanding the issues—our politics would be enriched so much.
G20
Diane Abbott Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I can confidently say that I do not think the idea of plan B was raised at any time during this meeting. It is interesting that Britain, Japan and America were all singled out as delivering stronger growth than expected and that is welcome for the world economy.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister accept that, although the vast majority of the British public want him to strain every sinew in humanitarian and diplomatic effort, they do not support military intervention in Syria and therefore welcome his correct judgment that the House of Commons has spoken and that he will not be bringing the matter back for a second vote?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, I have absolutely no intention of bringing the matter back in terms of British military action. I think that what happened in the debate is that a lot of Members of Parliament had listened to their constituents who were hugely concerned about the situation in Syria. Clearly, the British public are deeply sceptical about getting more involved in the Syrian conflict, but as politicians I think we all have a responsibility to try to separate from that, for a moment, the issue of chemical weapons and point out the dangers of not upholding that international taboo. Inevitably, however, all these subjects get meshed together.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Diane Abbott Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in this important debate. It seems that tonight Parliament has stepped back from the brink of giving the Prime Minister carte blanche to involve British forces in the bombing of Syria this weekend. I believe that the British public, whatever political party they support, will be glad that we have done so. We know—the polls tell us—that the public are overwhelmingly against such a military strike. The British public do not want to be drawn into yet another war in the middle east. They have seen that movie and know how it ends.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that had I been pressed by my own party to vote on a motion that authorised the bombing of Syria, in the current state of knowledge, I was always going to vote no—whatever the pressures and consequences. It would not have been a party political gesture, which some Government Members have mentioned. I was one of the Labour MPs who voted against their own Government on Iraq. I say to Government Members who may be wondering what to do tonight that I have never had reason to regret that vote.
It seems that the Prime Minister may be coming back to the House of Commons to authorise his war, and it may be helpful for me to set out my reservations as matters stand. The first question is about the facts. Have chemical weapons been used and who has deployed them? I heard what the Prime Minister said about the Joint Intelligence Committee and I know the opinion of Vice-President Biden. It is clear that the balance of probability is that Assad used chemical weapons. However, whatever the Americans say and the Joint Intelligence Committee conjectures, I do not believe that it is wise entirely to rule out the possibility that the chemical weapons were wielded by Assad’s opponents.
In these circumstances, we always have to ask, “Cui bono?”—“Who benefits?” Assad’s opponents know that only chemical weapons would trigger a reluctant President Obama to authorise a military intervention. Whatever the Prime Minister says, a military strike would inevitably tilt the scales of the civil war in favour of Assad’s opponents. Earlier, we heard that the UN investigator Carla Del Ponte said in May:
“according to testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas”.
They did it in May, and they may have done it again.
My other point is about legality. I have heard a lot about Kosovo and how in some sense it sets a precedent for this Syrian war. At the time of the Kosovan war, I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We carried out a major inquiry into Kosovo, taking a great deal of evidence about its legality. We took oral evidence from Professor Christopher Greenwood QC, Mark Littman QC and Professor Vaughan Lowe, among others, and there was a whole host of written evidence from others. What the all-party Select Committee concluded was that the Kosovo operation
“was contrary to the specific terms of what might be termed the basic law of the international community”.
We went on:
“at the very least, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis in current international customary law, and…this renders NATO action legally questionable.”
Those who want to rest the argument for a Syrian war on the Kosovan precedent need to read their law again.
Finally, let me say this. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Colin Powell cited the Pottery Barn rule—Pottery Barn is a string of American china shops. The rule is, “You break it? You own it.” The notion that we can make a military intervention on the narrow point of chemical weapons is disingenuous to say the least. Were we to intervene militarily in Syria, we would take ownership of the outcome of the civil war. I see no endgame, no idea of what victory would look like in those circumstances.
I am glad to be here to speak for my constituents. I will be glad to follow my leader into the Lobby tonight, but in my view we cannot support war in the House unless it has the stamp of the United Nations.
Debate on the Address
Diane Abbott Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for this early opportunity to make what will be a brief contribution to the debate. The debate coincides with ongoing family difficulties at home, so being able to get back to the highlands this evening rather than later is of very great assistance, and I am grateful for that. On that basis, I apologise to those on both Front Benches that, uncharacteristically, I will not be here for the wind-ups. I hope that they will understand.
As has been pointed out, this is the penultimate Queen’s Speech of this Parliament: there are now two years to go. I think that one political prediction on which we can all agree is that the next two years will go an awful lot more quickly than the last three years did. Whatever proposals are contained in the legislation outlined in the Queen’s Speech, the truth is that much of the politics in the next two years, and therefore at the next general election, will be conditioned not by what is in today’s speech, but by the wider economic scenario. We have welcomed the Queen to the Palace of Westminster today. Perhaps of more significance is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is welcoming the International Monetary Fund to the United Kingdom for its annual health audit. The implications for the economy will play as big a role in the next 18 months to two years as the proposals in front of us, important though they may be.
I welcome the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the second issue that will influence United Kingdom politics: the referendum in Scotland in 15 months’ time. The outcome will have a profound impact on not just Scottish politics, but UK politics in the run-up to the next Westminster general election. I was reassured to read that the Government
“will continue to make the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.”
Hear, hear. I give my unqualified support to the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition on that. That case needs to be made, and is particularly significant coming from the coalition at Westminster. Even in the few months that have elapsed since January, when we debated the various orders that enabled the transference of powers to Edinburgh to hold the referendum and so on, it has been interesting to see the debate develop. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. I will not comment one way or the other, but I will say that we need to hear, both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole, more constructive Conservative voices in the debate.
When I came to the House in 1983, there was still a very viable Scottish Tory presence here, but I saw it erode and erode and eventually fall off the edge of the cliff. I have always felt that that was extremely dislocating and unhealthy, not just for Scottish politics but, by implication, for United Kingdom politics as a whole. Although I am not in the business of trying to resurrect conservatism—my loyalty to the coalition does not extend quite as far as that—I think that, on any rational basis, it is clear that there will be a very skewed constitutional dialogue and debate if the traditional, historic and continuing authentic voice of conservatism is not heard, and does not have a degree of resonance. I think that that should be borne in mind during our discussions about Scotland’s role within the UK, which I hope will remain a vibrant and vital one.
Talk of Scotland remaining part of the UK prompts a further question, which, I believe, goes to much of the heart of the Queen’s Speech: what kind of United Kingdom do those of us who want Scotland to remain part of it wish to see? In that regard, I think that the Liberal Democrat voice—and I shall be directing my few remarks almost exclusively to my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition—is essential at this particular juncture.
First we have, up in lights, the issue of immigration. There is a sensible, constructive, rational argument to be had about that issue, but it should be preceded by a statement of principle, which, I am delighted to say, my right hon. Friend the leader of my party and Deputy Prime Minister has made many times. There are those of us in the House, and on the spectrum of British politics, who are unapologetic and unashamed in saying that, historically as well as in contemporary terms, the immigrant contribution to our economy and the values of our society has been immensely positive. It is something to be encouraged and celebrated, and it is not something in respect of which a Dutch auction on the back of UKIP and various other kenspeckle figures should be indulged in when it comes to how best to pursue the issue. That is an important aspect of the Liberal Democrat voice that needs to be heard—
Mr Kennedy
As, indeed, does the voice of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington in regard to this very issue.
Ms Abbott
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while we clearly want an efficient, fair immigration system which commands support, there is a danger of a downward spiral of anti-immigrant rhetoric which will not help anyone, and is in denial of the huge contribution that immigrants have made to this country over the years?
Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
Diane Abbott Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak in this historic debate. It would be wrong not to pay tribute to Britain’s first woman Prime Minister.
I entered Parliament in 1987, when Mrs Thatcher was still Prime Minister in all her pomp and glory, and it is fair to say that she was a remarkable parliamentary phenomenon. She believed in Parliament as the cockpit of political debate, in a way that is perhaps not fashionable today, and she was often the leading lady—whether we agreed with her or not—in some of Parliament’s most momentous occasions.
The House will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with many of the things for which she stood. However, I rose this afternoon not to challenge her beliefs, but to remind the House very gently that, even after all the years that have passed since she stood down as leader of her party, there are still millions of people who felt themselves to be on the wrong side of the titanic battles that she fought. Whether they are people who felt that the poll tax had been imposed on them wrongly, whether they are young people who were caught up in the difficult relationships between police and communities in our inner cities, whether they are people who were dismayed by her unwillingness to impose economic sanctions on South Africa and by her insistence on calling the African National Congress a terrorist organisation, or whether they are people—and I mean communities—who were caught up in the miners’ strike, there are still people living today who felt themselves to be on the wrong side of those titanic struggles, and the House should not make it appear that their voice cannot be heard.
Many Members from mining communities are present today, and they will have their say, but let me quote from another Conservative leader, Harold Macmillan. In his first speech in the House of Lords as Lord Stockton, he said:
“Although…I cannot interfere…it breaks my heart to see what is happening in our country today. A terrible strike is being carried on by the best men in the world. They beat the Kaiser’s army and they beat Hitler’s army. They never gave in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 240.]
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the titanic political struggles that she fought—Conservative Members have spoken about them at length—let us remember that in their hearts some of those communities never gave in and deserve to have a voice in the House this afternoon. I am happy to pay tribute to her historic significance and her historic role, and I know that history is written by victors, but those of us who came of age in the Thatcher era know that there was another side to the glories that Government Members have spoken about.
Oral Answers to Questions
Diane Abbott Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I listen very carefully to my hon. Friend, but Sir Howard Davies says in his review that this is a complicated issue that merits proper examination, which will take time. We need, as a country, to make major decisions on airports and airport capacity. We should aim as far as possible to try to make those decisions on a cross-party basis. I hope the Howard Davies report helps that to happen.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Q13. Last night’s vote on same-sex marriage is widely regarded as a historic vote. Does the Prime Minister agree that the vote is a tribute to the people down the decades who have worked—in all parties and no party, behind the scenes and in public—for such equality? Does he also agree that the vote proves that the arc of history bends slowly, but bends towards justice?
The Prime Minister
I agree very much with the hon. Lady. Last night’s vote will be seen not just as one that ensured a proper element of equality, but one that helps us to build a stronger and fairer society. Many of the speeches made last night were very moving and emotional. I pay tribute to all those people who have made the case—some have made it for many years—that they want their love to count the same way as a man and woman’s love for each other counts. That is what we have opened in this country, and why I am proud this Government brought it forward.
Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill
Diane Abbott Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this very important Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, who have been part of the process that has brought the Bill to the Floor of the House. I want to speak about stigma; about the policy challenges posed by mental health; and about why this Bill is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said.
Mental health is probably the last remaining great area of stigma in public life. It is striking that there were Members of Parliament willing to come out about their sexuality before Members of Parliament were willing to come out about their mental health challenges. That speaks to the level of stigma around mental health. The reasons for that stigma are worth touching on. First, it is partly about the very British notion that one has to keep calm and carry on, keep a stiff upper lip, have a cup of tea and get on with it. There is a sense that someone who has a mental health challenge has somehow failed personally. The stigma is also about sheer ignorance. I remember an appalling front page—I am sorry to mention this paper for the second time this week—that The Sun ran about Frank Bruno when he had his mental health problems: “Bonkers Bruno”. The Sun was shocked that thousands of people responded to that, which was an example of the public being ahead of their media. Of course, there is also fear involved. People are never so ignorant or so cruel as when they are frightened. Those things have fed the sense of stigma about mental health.
It is also important to talk about the policy challenges posed by mental health. For too long, mental health has been the orphan child of the health service. Many Members will know that their local mental health institutions and hospitals are often on the outskirts of their communities and cities, and that reflects how mental health has been seen. It is very important in the 21st century, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) feels passionately, that we offer a new deal on mental health—we welcome the Government’s mental health strategy—and that mental health and physical health are put on the same footing and get the same attention and proportionate funding.
Of course, mental health is about more than legislation. It is about resources, availability and the specific mental health needs of particular groups. We have heard about the mental health needs of the armed services. Yesterday I was at a health summit for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, where I heard about the unmet mental health needs in that community. We are seeing across the country rising levels of self-harm among our young people. The disproportionate numbers of black and minority ethnic people in our mental health hospitals and in our health system has long been a cause for concern.
Let me pause here and say to the House that last night my constituency party secretary, Greta Karpin, died. She was a brilliant and remarkable woman. We all have Greta Karpins in our local parties. Had she been born at another time and in another place, she would no doubt have been an MP or a Cabinet Minister. Greta was fortunate to die with all her faculties completely intact. In fact, she died on her way back from an executive party meeting, plotting about something or other, which I think is probably the way she would have wanted to go. Greta was in her late 70s and died with all her faculties intact, but that will not be true of all of us, or of all our friends and family. How we manage dementia and give help and support to the elderly who suffer from it is a huge policy challenge facing all of us.
We will debate big mental health policy issues in the House in the months and years to come, and I hope that we can find some measure of common ground on both sides of the Chamber. For example, for all the things I found problematic about the Health and Social Care Bill, moving responsibility for public health to local authorities offers the potential of making advances in mental health and tailoring provision to the particular needs of a particular community and groups within it.
Finally, I want to talk about why this Bill is important. As other Members have said—we have heard some excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House—it is important because of the symbolism of what it says about public attitudes towards mental health. In having this debate, we signify that attitudes have changed, but we are also helping to move those attitudes on. I have spent a lifetime fighting discrimination in all its forms, and I know that despite all the things people say about MPs, Parliament and so on, what happens in this House is often pivotal and a signifier of a decisive change in the public mood.
This is an important Bill and I am glad to support it on behalf of my party and our entire health team. Many people outside the House will be watching this debate and feeling relieved and that things may be changing for them. Mental health is one of the huge policy challenges of the 21st century. We as a House need to do many practical things with regard to policy and organisational issues, but in lifting the veil of stigma, of signalling that public attitudes must change and of turning the corner on attitudes to public health, there will be no more important moments in this House than this Bill being agreed today.
Immigration
Diane Abbott Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicholas Soames
I will not; I will continue, if I may. The outcome was a total of 3.5 million foreign immigrants, during which time 1 million British citizens left our shores. As the Institute for Public Policy Research put it,
“It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under new Labour has changed the face of the country.”
All that took place in the teeth of public opinion, and without any proper consultation or debate. Public concern—indeed anger—has been mounting, and opinion polls paint an unmistakable and chastening picture. There are, of course, positive aspects. All of us know that immigration has had a positive effect on entrepreneurial skills, premier league football, film, music, art and literature, as well as on food and restaurants. None of that is in dispute but, as I have said, the issue is one of scale.
The most immediate effect of the wave of immigration has been on our population. The results of the 2011 census show that in the past 10 years, the population increase in England and Wales was the largest for any period since census taking began in 1801. Looking ahead, if net migration continues at 200,000 people a year—the average over the past 10 years—we will find that our population hits 70 million in 15 years’ time.
Let us be clear about what that means. We would see a population increase of 7.7 million people, nearly 5 million of whom would be purely as a result of new immigrants and their children. Numbers of that kind are hard to grasp, so let me put it like this: in the coming 15 years, just for new immigrants and their families, we will have to build the equivalent of eight of the largest cities outside the capital—Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Bristol and Glasgow—together with the associated social infrastructure of schools, roads, hospitals, railways and all the rest. Perhaps those who support the continuation of mass immigration will explain where the money will come from to cope with such numbers, particularly at a time when the Government are borrowing £1 for every £4 they spend.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Nicholas Soames
I will not. There are some who try to wave away those figures on the basis that they are only projections. The fact is, however, that for the past 50 years the Office for National Statistics has been accurate to plus or minus 2.5% on its 20-year projections. The other claim is that Britain is not really crowded. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and the public are crystal clear on it.
Faced with that chaotic situation, the Government have gone about things in the right way. They have carried out a careful and thorough review of the three major immigration routes: students, economic migration and marriage. I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the former Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), for their grasp of the issues and their determination to tackle them.
This House should be under no delusion: the public demand and expect the Government of this country to deal with and fix these matters. The most recent numbers are rather disappointing, but it is too early to expect any substantial effect on net immigration. Last week’s figures apply only to the first full year of the coalition Government, and that time was needed to review the complex system that they inherited.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), because that is exactly the point. The idea that immigration is out of control is nonsense. We know that the Government’s ambition is to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. It is not going to happen. What the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex and Members on the Government Benches fail to appreciate is that we live in an interconnected and globalised world where knowledge, ideas, creativity and talent are an international commodity. That of necessity means a transfer of people across continents and countries, and that is good for the global economy; it is good for our economy.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who I thought made one of the most thoughtful speeches from his side of the House in this debate.
I have never shied away from debates about immigration. In fact, I find it odd to hear from people who think that it is very brave to argue, as this motion does, for a cut in immigration, as though those of us who have argued for immigrants’ rights over decades have had it easy. My experience has been completely to the contrary: those of us who have argued for immigrants’ rights have been those who have been most likely to be pilloried.
I have an interest in this debate as I have a brother, a sister and two uncles who are migrants. They have gone to the Bahamas, Canada and the USA, they have married people from third countries, and they have brought millions into those countries’ economies and added to their artistic and intellectual lives. They are an example, as are many of my constituents, of the positive impact of migration around the world.
Ms Abbott
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not immigrants’ rights but the need to have a fair and transparent immigration system based on the facts and not on urban myth? Does she agree that the response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) about who will pay for the houses and hospitals the immigrants need is quite simple? It will be hard-working immigrants who do so, through taxation.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. What I object to most about the motion is its focus on numbers and its failure to focus on the lives of human beings. That is the issue. If we are thinking about migration policy, the first thing we need to do is think about who the migrants are, what they are here for and what the benefits are to them, their families, the communities they come to and the country as a whole.
Frankly, there is a serious consequence of not starting from the question of the lives of human beings, and we saw it in the decision on London Metropolitan university, where there has been a collective punishment of perfectly legitimate students for the failure of the institution at which they registered in all good faith. I am not saying that every student was necessarily legitimate, but we know that those students who are and who fulfil all the requirements have been collectively punished, absolutely contrary to British traditions, for the failure of the institution in which they work. That is a consequence of trying to decide immigration policy not on its human consequences, but on some abstract numerical basis.
Some of the attempts that the Government have made to date to reduce immigration policy have had serious consequences. I want to take the opportunity of the new Minister’s presence in this debate to highlight some of them and to ask him to consider whether things are going in the right direction. A large group of migrants in my constituency have come here as family members of people who are already in this country. Recently, the immigration rules have been changed to require that if a family is to be united in such a way they need to earn, if they have one child, for example, £22,500. That is above the average wage of people who live in Slough. More than half of my constituents, if they marry someone from overseas, will be unable to be united with their spouse. That is cruel. It is unfair to have a means test on the right to a family life.