Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Unaccountable power must not hide, privilege must not be protected, money must be accounted for and elite networks of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanising, subjugating, exploiting and sexually assaulting women—women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr Epstein and his associates must be brought to book, and Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account for his role as a special trade envoy and for his associations. We have all been revulsed by the stories that we have heard, and that is why today’s debate must also be about the victims and survivors.

I first raised my concern because my constituency carries the name of York and the Duke of York’s ambassadorial associations with our city were causing much concern in my community. I therefore brought those concerns to the House on 21 February 2022, just days after the settlement of the lawsuit to Ms Giuffre, known to be in the region of £12 million. My city—a human rights city, no less—was clearly disturbed, and as a result of that I sought a separation between the title and the city. Later that year, after working closely with the Clerks, I brought forward a Bill to remove the title, but that still has not been done. I brought forward another Bill just last year on the removal of title, this time bringing in the option of removing the title from peerages as well, but I have still not had a positive response.

The reasons I am speaking in this debate today are: first, that in looking into these issues, I realised that the Humble Address was narrow in its scope; and secondly, to ask what we should do with the information once it has been corroborated. Clearly the police investigation must take its course, and I am sure it will be deep and thorough because it runs so far, but ultimately, if we are just looking at the appointment, we must also ask about that period of time when Mr Mountbatten-Windsor carried out the role and the implications to wider networks. I do not want this to end up in the court of public opinion, or perhaps with the media digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories. But what does it do to this place? What does it do to change the way the systems work?

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I recognise the work that the hon. Lady has done on titles and holding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account. She makes a good point about making sure that we do not have a court of public opinion, but I would like to give my thanks to the many media outlets—it does not matter which one you read or what its political slant—that have done tremendous work, trawling through hundreds of thousands of documents. Does she agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to light many of the awful things that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is alleged to have been associated with?

[Rachael Maskell]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I know that journalists have been up through the night poring over the Epstein files and digging deep to hold power to account. Our media have a vital role in this, and long may it continue. Their scrutiny is also important for this place and the work that we do here.

We need a process of learning from this, and I believe that there should be a judge-led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought to account so that we can learn and hold to account in this place with regard to concerns about how these associations are formed and the depth to which they infiltrate places like this, the Government and international networks. As we have learned over the last few weeks, sensitive financial information has been shared, and this can impact on our constituencies, markets and trade. That in turn has an impact on the very people we are here to represent.

No longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these conversations, gaining more power and exploiting whoever crosses their path without being held accountable. We therefore need to understand how to create even deeper transparency across all institutions, including all areas of Government, just as we try to do in this place each and every day. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) says, this inquiry must be far-reaching and it must pursue all these issues.

I recognise that many Departments have been missed out in the Humble Address. We need to understand, for instance, how transport has been used, and not just civil transport but military transport. We need to see the missing logs to find out who was on those planes, where they were going and where they had come from. We also need to understand the expenses system that ensued and to find out how signing off for massages became a duty of the taxpayer. Individuals questioned this, as we have heard, but the reality is that people did not feel empowered to blow the whistle and raise those concerns. We need to institute processes where people can raise concerns wherever they see them, but at the moment we do not have the confidence that that was undertaken within the systems. How are we going to institute that?

There are also questions about visas—we know that 90 people came in and out of the country during the period that we are looking at today—and of course there must be rigour in appointment processes. Much has been heard about that over the last few months, and it lies at the heart of this Humble Address. We need to ensure that all these appointments are transparent. I heard what the Minister said today, but we have 32 trade envoys and I have never seen one post advertised. I am not aware of the expertise that those individuals have with regard to trade or to their relations with a particular country. What do they actually add? What value do they actually bring, and how can we assess that from this place? I therefore ask for a proper review of all these appointments to assess what they bring, because surely we should have better accountability.

I also want to mention the intelligence services. I cannot believe that our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. How do we bring that to account, to ensure that that information is also in the public domain? Where are the minutes of all those meetings? What do they say? How do we find out? There are so many questions in response to the Humble Address being put today, but we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well. This must not be about just holding and examining the information and commenting in the tea rooms and the corridors; we must ensure that power is held to account, and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold.

As the light is shone deeper into the darkest networks of the elite’s exploitations, and as the systems are overhauled and reviewed, may the police do their job well and extensively and may we in this place always focus on the women who were exploited, gaslit, traumatised and left broken as we seek justice and seek to hold that power to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

The release of the Epstein files has shone a light where so many people did not want a light to be shone. Even with millions of documents still to be released, it is abundantly clear that for decades, the rich, the politically powerful and the well-connected have colluded to cover up their utterly appalling behaviours. That light which is now being shone does not just illuminate those who are personally responsible for their behaviour; it reveals those who knew what was happening, who enabled it and who chose to turn a blind eye.

The people of this country are rightly furious. That is why I made the point yesterday, and will make it again today, on the Humble Address on the release of the Peter Mandelson files that with trust in the Government at an all-time low, they only have one chance to come clean about everything they know and they hold pertaining, in this case, to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to that post.

Of course, unlike the Mandelson files which this House demanded be released, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did not happen on the current Government’s watch. But Mr Mandelson leaves a long trail, and there may well be information which relates directly to him and which will cause serious embarrassment to many senior Labour party figures who were in power at the time. Let us not forget that the author Andrew Lownie explains in great detail in his book, “Entitled” about how it was former Trade Secretary Peter Mandelson who assisted Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in landing the role of UK special representative, seemingly against the advice of Mr Mountbatten’s brother, the then Prince Charles.

Let me repeat my warning from yesterday that these files must be released and must be released in full, because any attempt to sanitise what is in them and to save face for any Government Ministers, past or present, could have serious long-term consequences for our democracy. That is also the very least that the victims and survivors deserve.

We know that there are serious questions about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as trade envoy back in 2001 that need answers. They include: whose idea was it? Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandelson play in making that appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely suitable for the position of UK trade envoy? What warnings were given before and during his stint as trade envoy about his character and behaviour? Who was he responsible to while serving as trade envoy? Who scrutinised his behaviour and spending? What warnings were given during his time as trade envoy and how were those warnings handled?

In a normal, functioning democracy, we would not have had to wait until Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been stripped of his titles and evicted from his royal house, and was facing removal from the line of succession, before being able to discuss this issue. There have been serious concerns about Mr Mountbatten-Windsor for decades, many of them relating to his time as trade envoy. There are reports of him requesting that the public purse cover the cost of his massage services. When one understandably angry and unhappy civil servant complained, he was promptly overruled by his bosses. That now retired civil servant commented recently:

“I can’t say it would have stopped him, but we should have flagged that something was wrong.”

Of course something was wrong, but what difference would it have made to us in this House? As Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was a member of the royal family at that time, we were not allowed to question or examine what he was doing as a special trade envoy.

It was not just civil servants who found getting information on Mr Mountbatten-Windsor all but impossible. The author Andrew Lownie has reported that he has had multiple freedom of information requests rejected, including on the grounds that it would be too time-consuming for Departments to go through the volume of information. One rejection actually said that looking at just one year of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s time as trade envoy would mean going through 1,927 digital files, each containing multiple pieces of information. Yet until Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s status changed, we in this House were not allowed to discuss that.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the fact that the title of prince has protected Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from greater scrutiny and inspection of his activities. What should we do to ensure that other titles, whether that is Prime Minister, Secretary of State or royal titles, do not protect powerful individuals?

[Brendan O’Hara]

The answer is quite simple: nobody can be above the law. Everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. As the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place, and I will return to that point. Fundamentally, regardless of rank or privilege, nobody should be above the law.

Many people will be embarrassed by what has happened, not least, as we have heard, the now leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, as Under-Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, and, I presume, with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back, was forced to stoutly defend the then Prince Andrew. He said:

“I…believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649.]

He called him a “long-standing success” and said he had been great for British business, but what else could he have said as a Government Minister? We are not allowed to speak the truth about certain individuals in this place. Within three months of the right hon. Member making those comments, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor had resigned in disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

It was not just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein that caused concern. In February 2011, the Minister attempted to raise a question about the special representative role and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s links to a notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler, only to be told by the then Speaker that

“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]

These archaic rules make a mockery of our democracy. The situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly as the royal family can and do both have a constitutional role and involve themselves in the political realm.

Parental Leave Review

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

If I was to accept specific recommendations at this point, that would be rather pre-empting the review, but I do hear the arguments that have been made. Obviously, the other place will decide how it wants to proceed with various amendments to the Employment Rights Bill—I just hope that it hurries up with it.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

May I add my voice to welcoming the review as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood? It is a step in the right direction in correcting a decade of Tory failure on this issue. The Tories thought that giving dads two weeks of paternity leave and allowing them to break it up into one-week chunks was progress.

I note that fathers were not in the four objectives announced by the Minister. Does he accept that we cannot achieve those four objectives without better paternity leave and pay? For example, we cannot achieve good physical and mental health of women after birth without addressing the rights of fathers and birthing partners. If he accepts that, will he agree to meet the APPG throughout the review?

[Justin Madders]

I am of course happy to meet the APPG as part of the review. The hon. Member said that there was no explicit reference to fathers in the four objectives, but I suggest that our general references to parents do include fathers. For example, the second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work, and the fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including by enabling co-parenting. I believe that clearly addresses his point.

Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate.

The UK’s automotive industry is a cornerstone of our economy, contributing £93 billion and providing many high-skilled, high-wage jobs across the country, which pay 13% above the national average. Crucially, many are located outside London and the south-east. However, the industry faces intense global competition, supply chain pressures and the ongoing demands of the transition to net zero, as well as Trump’s disastrous tariffs, which are deliberately targeted at the automotive sector. The UK Government, under the Conservatives and now Labour, have struggled and failed to grow the economy. The automotive sector will need to be at the forefront of any plan to get on to the right path again.

When I visited BMW’s Mini plant in Cowley earlier this year—

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for trade, for visiting the Cowley Mini plant in Oxfordshire. All Liberal Democrat Oxfordshire MPs attended; it was a pleasurable visit and we saw the amazing work being done there. I am worried that the Government are asleep at the wheel on this issue and that we will see job cuts at Cowley as a result of the very high energy costs in the United Kingdom. I would like the Government to do more to tackle that and, potentially, to support the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should announce greater flexibility, benefiting not just luxury manufacturers such as JLR—that is very welcome—but those that make cars intended for the mass market?

[Clive Jones]

I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about energy prices, and I will talk about that a bit later.

When I visited BMW’s plant, I met hard-working staff, who are the most at risk if the Government continue to get this wrong. Whether plants are being closed or investment scaled down, people lose their livelihoods and a rich history of manufacturing at the heart of Britain is lost, possibly forever.

This sector is at a crossroads: with the right support, it can lead the way in innovation, climate action and economic resilience, but without swift and strategic action, we risk losing a competitive advantage built up over generations. That is why more must be done to end the uncertainties that the car industry faces, and that starts by building consumer confidence in electric vehicles. The previous Conservative Government failed to support a thriving electric vehicle market in the UK, implementing chaotic U-turns that badly hurt the industry, and they continually failed to deliver the charging infrastructure needed to boost demand, create jobs and cut emissions. The Government must right that wrong by cutting VAT on public charging by 5%, by investing urgently in schemes to speed up the installation of rapid charging points throughout the country and by making it as affordable as possible to own an EV by reducing electricity prices that are passed on to the consumer.

One of the clearest calls from the sector is on energy costs. UK automotive businesses face electricity prices that are, on average, twice as high as those in the EU; gas costs are nearly 60% higher. That is an unsustainable burden. If we are serious about reshoring manufacturing and making the UK a global hub for ZEVs, we must address that urgently.

Ensuring that we have a strong trading relationship with our economic allies is vital for supporting UK automotive employment. The EU remains our largest trading partner for vehicles, and electric vehicles are now the biggest share of UK automotive exports by value. With the next EU-UK summit on the horizon, the time to act is now. We must give investors and manufacturers certainty and protect the employment and regional growth that depend on it.

What contingency planning is in place to protect UK manufacturers and exporters if President Trump’s damaging tariffs remain in place? What action is being taken to reduce the UK’s industrial energy costs to ensure a level playing field with our global competitors? What is the status of the £200 million that was announced in the autumn Budget for charging infrastructure but is in limbo? What is the status of the rapid charging fund, which has delivered ultra-rapid en-route hubs across the country? Will the UK formally seek to accede to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention to provide manufacturers with a more flexible and reliable origin framework?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on not only securing this debate but delivering a superb opening speech. She spoke with passion for the automotive sector, particularly Toyota in her constituency, and she spoke with realism about the challenges that we face, and the other way that is possible to ensure that consumers get to choose vehicles of the future that are greener and cleaner and do not rely on fossil fuels, but do not necessarily fit in with the Government’s chosen winner, despite the fact that they claim to be technology neutral. That is battery electric, whose sales figures, once we remove fleet sales, are utterly appalling because people simply do not want to buy one of those vehicles.

Employment in the automotive manufacturing sector— a sector that has long been the backbone of British industry, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and driving innovation—is the foundation of regional economies across our great United Kingdom. My constituency does not have any major vehicle manufacturers, but it sits in the absolute heart of motorsport valley. The motorsport sector and its supply chains do so much to create the next big thing and innovate. They find solutions, yes, for speed and the racetrack, but there is often a direct translation from the race car to the road car. So much British innovation in motorsport has found itself in the cars that I am sure all of us in this Chamber and people across the country drive today.

It is therefore with great concern that I speak about the marked lack of support for the vital automotive sector under this Labour Government. Let us be clear that this is not a new challenge: automotive manufacturing has been under pressure for many years from the combined forces of global competition, supply chain shocks and the urgent transition to cleaner technologies—note the plural, cleaner technologies; there is not just one. We now see a deeper, more systemic failure, which is rooted in the inability of this Government to deliver on their own promises and provide the strategic direction that the industry so desperately needs.

Take, for instance, Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment to “supercharge the electric vehicle revolution” and make the UK “the best place in the world to manufacture electric cars”. Those are bold words yet one year into their term, we see precious little action, only rhetoric that seems to accept an electric future rather than a technology-neutral approach.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Greg Smith]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does the hon. Member regret the lack of action to bring forward battery manufacturing in the UK under the Conservative Government?

[Greg Smith]

What I regret is the ZEV mandate, which is why I voted against it at the time. It puts shackles around our automotive industry, and it needs to be revisited so that our automotive sector has the freedom to get on, innovate and provide future solutions that consumers might actually want to buy.

Even with the electric obsession, the promised gigafactory developments remain stalled or mired in uncertainty, commercial investment incentives have been vague at best and crucial supply chain support has failed to materialise in any meaningful way. Labour also pledged to spend on a national training programme to reskill workers for the green transition, yet we still await details of how, when and, crucially, where that will be delivered.

The skills gap in the automotive industry is widening by the day. Thousands of jobs are at risk, not because there is no demand for people to work in that sector, but because we do not have a pipeline of trained, job-ready individuals. The industry has been crying out for a co-ordinated national effort to address this, and what it has received instead is a patchwork of pilot schemes and a lot of ministerial hot air.

Contrast that with the pragmatic and targeted steps taken by the last Government, which launched the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge—programmes that secured investment in cutting-edge technologies and laid the groundwork for the electric vehicle sector in particular. To attract global investment, we need to back British innovation and give investors confidence in our long-term industrial strategy. In government, the Conservatives also took real action to support jobs: the automotive transformation fund, which was backed by Conservative Ministers, delivered vital support to manufacturers, and let us not forget the commitment made to freeports, which are already starting to attract inward investment and create highly skilled jobs, including in areas directly linked to automotive logistics and component manufacture.

Now, under Labour, we see dithering where there should be decision making. The industry does not need more consultations; it needs action. Businesses are ready to invest—yes, in electric, but also in synthetics and hydrogen. However, they need the certainty that they can get on and do that. They need clarity on planning reform, energy prices, trade policy and the Government’s commitment to industrial growth.

The Government must address the ever-growing training deficit. They must launch a comprehensive industry-led training strategy that spans apprenticeships, technical colleges and adult reskilling programmes. It must be tailored to the needs of automotive employers, not devised in isolation by Whitehall, where the Government pick the winners and losers at odds with what consumers want to buy. The Government must do more to attract foreign direct investment into the automotive sector. That means tax incentives that are actually internationally competitive, a planning system that works at pace and a stable regulatory environment. Labour’s flirtation with regulatory overreach is already spooking the investors.

The Government must ensure that the UK’s de-fossilisation transition is an opportunity for jobs and growth, not a burden on industry. I repeat: that means genuine technologically-neutral support, embracing other technologies beyond battery electric, such as synthetic fuels and hydrogen, as well as putting realistic deadlines around any transition.

The automotive manufacturing sector is not asking for handouts; it is asking for clarity and leadership. The last Conservative Government took steps in that direction. Labour, in contrast, have offered slogans over substance, and pledges over performance. We cannot allow this Government’s inaction to cost Britain its place at the forefront of the global automotive industry. The time to act is now.

“Chapter 4A

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling]

As somebody who was adopted myself, I know only too well the importance of supportive love. I have been heavily involved with children’s services, and I know that the best care for children in need of loving homes is often not too far away from home. The more that children’s services can be less of a child-rescuing service and more of a child support service, the better, so I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend alludes to.

An area that particularly exercised the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire in Committee was third-party harassment, and I strongly support the Government’s proposals in this Bill. I have engaged with young women in Torbay who work in retail and the hospitality industry, particularly those from Torquay girls’ grammar school, and they find that harassment in the workplace is not a bit of banter, but repugnant in the extreme. They told me that they will go to a shift feeling sick to the stomach because they know a particular individual will be coming in that evening who will act inappropriately. Their managers should have a duty of care toward them, and I welcome that proposal in the Bill.

I know that some of the amendments allude to non-disclosure agreements. I welcome the Minister’s kind words, but warm words do not get measures into legislation. I ask him to reflect on that, and I am sure that colleagues will speak about NDAs.

The final area I need to cover is probationary periods. We Liberal Democrats would really welcome putting a three to nine-month probationary period on the face of the Bill, which would ensure that there is less chance of expensive tribunals for employers. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken in respect of statutory sick pay, but we need to ensure that the correct balance is struck between the burden on employers and positive outcomes for employees.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I welcome the amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, especially new clauses 12 to 14, which would extend paternity leave from two to six weeks and double the amount of pay. Those precious weeks are essential for fathers to bond with their child and to provide additional support to their partners. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are essential new clauses that the Government should accept?

[Steve Darling]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When I go and speak to primary school teachers, they say that they face a challenge where there is poor attachment between the parent and the child, which can have a significant developmental impact on young people. By giving greater powers through this Bill, we can drive stronger connections between those parts of the family unit.

The reality is that we need to support small businesses and get the right balance between implementing the good stuff in this Bill and making sure that we are not punishing businesses. We need to make sure that we support the family, because, as I have said, the family is the core part of what our society is, and strengthening that will hopefully strengthen outcomes and strengthen our society. My fear is that this Bill is a little bit like Snow White’s apple: it may have looked extremely good on the outside, but it sent her to sleep. My fear is that this Bill is a little like that, because it may have a lot of promise on the outside, but it could be a sleeping potion for our economy.

Budget Resolutions

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) for his speech, but he should know better, because one of his relatives used to be a doctor in my village in the Cotwolds.

I, and the rest of the country, have waited for this Budget for 14 years. I have worked as a GP throughout that time, and I have watched with horror as our NHS has gone from being the best health service in the world—as it was in 2010—to being a service on its knees. For 14 years I have watched the gap between rich and poor grow wider and wider. For 14 years I have watched the fabric of our schools, and the NHS, fall apart. I therefore welcome this Budget. It is a Budget that lifts the curse of low pay and invests in the special educational needs of our children. It is the Budget that will finally compensate those who have been wronged by the infected blood scandal. It is a Budget that will rebuild Britain.

Lifting people out of low pay and making our country more equal is probably the most effective way of preventing ill health and making our population healthier, so what I really welcome in this Budget is the huge amount of funding for the NHS—the biggest amount in 14 years. With that funding, though, need to come reform and an increase in productivity, and I want to outline a few little projects on which we need to concentrate to increase our productivity. On GP access, Dr Tom Sutherland of Dursley practice has—

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member join me in expressing concern about the rise in national insurance contributions and the impact it will have on GP surgeries, including potential closures? GPs in my constituency have been asking me about the impact.

[Dr Opher]

I understand that it will be mitigated through funding. I am not exactly sure how, but I have no doubt—[Interruption.] That is because I have not been informed, but I have no doubt that it will be coped with. I know that this Government will rebuild general practice, just as the Conservative party trashed it and broke the back of it. I am not taking any criticism from any of you about the NHS.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Like the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), I recognise that my experience of fatherhood is heteronormative and I appreciate that there are many other forms of families. I will probably end up repeating some of the excellent points put forward by the hon. Member, but since they are very good ones I will not hesitate to repeat them.

My first point is that the paternity system is classist: white-collar workers generally get much better provision from their employers. Some workers get up to six months, if they work in high-demand industries. Contrast that with the provision in precarious industries and the gig economy and for traditional blue-collar workers. They tend to get very little indeed: two weeks’ statutory pay or naught if they are self-employed.

Paternity leave is essential to avoid the woman becoming the default primary care giver. Inequality in the length of parental leave further entrenches inequalities. On maternal health, I highlight that receiving only two weeks of paternity pay is extremely challenging if one’s partner or birthing partner has experienced a traumatic birth, whether that is a C-section or otherwise. My wife went through a 40-hour labour and also a really difficult pregnancy with hyperemesis, and that had impacts on both her physical and mental health. Many other women experienced the same, and the support of their partner is essential at that time. As so many people move around the country these days for work, many people live far away from their families, so having the father or the partner there is essential.

The evidence from other countries is clear: the longer the paternity pay, the better we are at closing gender pay gaps and the less the impact on the career prospects of the person giving birth. I end on a riposte to the previous Government for their shameful response to a petition in the last Parliament on this topic. Rather than extending paternity leave, the Government responded to it by simply exalting the benefits of being able to split the two weeks up and take them at different times. How generous that is! How useful that is cannot be underestimated—I am obviously being facetious. The Employment Rights Bill clearly does not go far enough, but I welcome this debate and the noises from those on the Government Benches that indicate they will consider this issue in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]