Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Mike Freer

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the Prime Minister’s poor trade deal with the EU has already damaged exports and cost jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) says, the warnings from business groups this week that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill risks further damage to trade and investment ought to have rung very loud alarm bells across Whitehall. Will Ministers commit to publishing, before the Bill’s Second Reading, an analysis of its implications for British exporters and all those whose jobs depend on exports to European markets?

[Mike Freer]

I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s request and discuss it with colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Mike Freer

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Survey after survey of business owners report unnecessary hassle and difficulty in exporting to European markets, with extra red tape, checks and delays too often the norm. As no one in the Government is getting a grip on this, why does the Secretary of State not get herself down to Dover to understand directly what needs doing to ease the very real difficulties that British businesses face?

[Mike Freer]

If we could export broken records, I think the hon. Gentleman would be a winner, but I have to say that his description is far from the truth. What are the Government and the Department doing? We have the export support service, the Export Academy, export champions, international trade advisers in the UK and overseas, agri-commissioners, hundreds of staff focusing on specific sectors, the tradeshow programme, UK Export Finance and trade envoys. The key issue is that in-country, where we find specific issues, we liaise country to country to resolve them. It is simply not true that the Government are doing nothing. In fact, we are seeing exports starting to recover and appetite for British goods and services going up ever more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Mike Freer

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

The ESS is there to help traders who are struggling with elements of trading with Europe and it will continue to do so. It is available online and by telephone, but if the hon. Lady would like me to meet her constituents, I would be more than happy to do so.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the growing list of companies setting out the real and obvious difficulties they are facing in accessing markets in Europe, and given the many very practical suggestions that business groups have put forward to the Government in recent weeks, from negotiating a veterinary agreement and making progress on mutual recognition, to even just getting agreement on shared customs advice, when are Ministers going to try a bit harder to help businesses make Brexit work?

[Mike Freer]

As far as I know, we have suggested solutions and are waiting for the EU to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. A key challenge facing the UK and other major exporters is shipping container costs, and there is ongoing engagement across Government, including the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Competition and Markets Authority and the Department for Transport, to ensure that we understand the background causes of price rises and their impacts, such as by contacting the shipping lines and engaging with international partners where necessary to address the key issue of supply lines that my hon. Friend raised.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the Government’s underwhelming performance on trade to date, even the small gains from joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would be welcome, but one issue that the previous Secretary of State always ducked was China’s interest. Given President Xi’s reaffirmation on Monday of China’s desire to join the CPTPP, can the Secretary of State clarify whether Britain would have the right to veto China’s accession?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. These issues are very complex, but what I will say is that we are first in the queue to join CPTTP, and after that all things are up for review.

HIV: Women and Girls

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Mike Freer

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes good points. We often think of stigma and prejudice as affecting poorer parts of the world and, unfortunately, many parts of the Commonwealth, but stigma remains an issue even in the UK. Even in the UK, people seeking treatment for HIV will often go to a sexual health clinic outside their local area because they are afraid of the stigma that can be attached to being seen as being HIV-positive. We have made significant progress, but a lot remains to be done in the UK and in particular the developing world. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

There are still around 20 million people living with HIV who are not accessing ARVs. Just half of those living with HIV are simply not aware of their status. I want to talk about some of the key issues facing the AIDS challenge and the HIV challenge. Since 2000, adolescent deaths have tripled. AIDS is the leading cause of death for adolescents in Africa and the second greatest cause of adolescent deaths globally. Some 60% of new HIV infections are among young women. Globally, HIV/AIDS remains the biggest killer for women of reproductive age. More than 5,000 young women and girls acquire HIV every week. In southern Africa, adolescent girls and young women acquire HIV seven years earlier than their male peers, which has a devastating impact on their life chances. HIV/AIDS is a major barrier to the ability of women and girls to participate in education and to become and remain economically active. If we want to achieve gender equality across education, health and economic participation, we have to tackle HIV/AIDS in women and girls.

We know what needs to be done to achieve the target to end the epidemic by 2030. We know that we need to challenge and end the stigma and discrimination faced by those living with HIV/AIDS. That stigma acts as a barrier to people being tested and accessing the services they need. We need to improve access to treatment for those who are diagnosed as having contracted the virus. With just 25% of girls having a full understanding of how HIV is transmitted and prevented, we need to improve education. We also need to tackle violence against women and girls. Adolescent girls and young women who have experienced sexual violence are 50% more likely to have acquired HIV.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his chairing of the all-party group. Given that the highest incidences of HIV and AIDS among women and girls tend to be in countries with strong historical links to Britain, does he accept that we have a particular responsibility to show international leadership on the issue? Would this not be a good time for the Minister to announce that the Secretary of State will, as a result, be attending the 2016 UN General Assembly high-level meeting on ending AIDS in June this year?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. It is still a shame on the Commonwealth that so many of our Commonwealth partners continue to discriminate against people with HIV and against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Later, I will go on to mention some of the challenges with our withdrawal from many of the middle-income countries. It leaves many marginalised groups and many criminalised groups bereft of support, whether that is treatment or even just accessing healthcare in general.

On the Durban conference later this year, the hon. Gentleman will not have seen the answer to my written question that was published about 10 minutes ago, but the Department of Health will be sending ministerial colleagues to represent the UK and the Department for International Development is sending officials. The UK will be represented at the Durban conference—that is hot off the press.

Let me turn colleagues’ attention to some of the other issues. This is not just about the wide range of complexities, whether it is access to treatment, violence, education or economic participation; it is about how we approach research and development, both in dealing with HIV/AIDS and, in the developed world, in accessing the medical tools most needed to meet public health needs. The UK has an important role to play in meeting those ambitious objectives.

Historically, DFID has been a leader in the global response to HIV and AIDS and was viewed as one of the most forward thinking and effective agencies. When he responds, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm how DFID’s research and development is progressing, so that we can ensure that our standing as a world leader in that field will remain. At one time, the Department had a large dedicated policy team engaged in the AIDS response. It showed financial leadership through increased funding of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, but I am concerned that its AIDS and reproductive health and rights team has gradually reduced in capacity and was renamed the sexual and reproductive health and rights team, with HIV being theoretically mainstreamed across DFID’s work.

There is increasingly a perception that DFID does not have the focus on HIV and AIDS that it once did. To be fair, every Minister I have spoken to in the DFID team, including the Secretary of State, has confirmed that HIV/AIDS remains a Government priority and an integral part of the Department’s work; yet the newly published UK aid strategy makes no reference to HIV or AIDS and gives no indication of how the UK intends to contribute to meeting the SDG target to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030. I checked the DFID website, and as far as I can see it appears to be silent on eradicating HIV as a departmental goal. It used to be a specific target and there used to be specific mention of what the Department was doing to eradicate HIV, but the website currently appears to be silent on that issue. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister explain why HIV has not been explicitly included and commit to putting that right?

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

When the hon. Gentleman researched the DFID website, was he able to find any speech by the Secretary of State or one of her ministerial colleagues on Britain’s contribution to HIV/AIDS that had not been provoked by a debate like this one, or by other House of Commons debates or questions?

[Mike Freer]

To be fair, I did not search through all the speeches given by colleagues in the Department. I did see that the most recent targets and policy statements ended in 2015, when the SDGs were agreed, and that some of the other policy documents dated back as far as 2013. To be fair to colleagues in the Department, I am sure that they have made speeches, but I did not search the database. I was searching the targets and policy pages. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to direct me to what I have missed, but it appears that the website is currently silent on specific targets and policies.

Can my right hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that he will ensure that the HIV response is given a clearer and explicit inclusion in the strategies to meet the needs of women and girls in order to support gender equality, as well as all the other related issues? Addressing HIV is a key component of the women and girls agenda, and I hope he will confirm that it will be made a specific target and policy of the Department and will be clearly and explicitly mentioned on its website. The lack of a clearly articulated HIV strategy sends out a signal that HIV is being deprioritised and absorbed into other areas.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Mike Freer

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

If my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these questions, will bear with me, I will come later to some of the issues relating to the House of Lords and the extent to which the Bill affects the performance of its Members.

I accept that it was probably not the intention of the Leader of the House that Members of Parliament should be affected in the way that I and other Members who have intervened have described and that that was a result of the Bill being so badly rushed. Had Members on both sides of the House not raised concerns, these sensible amendments would not have been put forward by the Government.

As I indicated, I want to ask a couple of questions about the impact of the Government’s amendments and whether any lessons have been learnt from the process by which the offending paragraphs ended up in the Bill. As several Members made clear on Second Reading, and as the standards committee spelled out, there was a series of concerns about the inclusion of paragraphs 1 and 2 to schedule 1 and their impact on parliamentary privilege. The Committee’s helpful report noted the evidence that had been received by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in March this year. The evidence from Lord Judge underlined the risk of including specific exemptions for MPs in this, or indeed any, Bill. It also underlined the concern that future legislation relating to Members without such an exemption might inadvertently affect parliamentary privilege.

Did the Leader of the House consider that report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and if not, why not? Did he take any advice on the inclusion of those paragraphs before signing them off and presenting the Bill to Parliament? Does he now accept that pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps a further period of public consultation with the industry and its stakeholders, might have prevented such a considerable error?

A further concern the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege highlighted relates to the inclusion of a definition of who is resident in an MP’s constituency using the 1983 Act’s description of who can and cannot vote.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

At least eight or nine major charities are headquartered in my constituency. Does he believe that I would be prevented from representing their interests because they, as corporate bodies, are not resident? How does he see that affecting my ability to represent those charitable interests?

[Mr Thomas]

I think that I did the hon. Gentleman an enormous service back in the 2005 general election, but I am happy to try to be of service to him now. He has rightly raised a concern about whether he would have been able to do the job he wants to do on behalf of those charities had the Government not finally brought forward their amendments.

Public Services (Social Value) Bill

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Mike Freer

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Before we move off new clause 1, may I draw the House’s attention to subsection 5(b), which contains a definition of “social enterprise”? As I read it, Barratt Homes would qualify here, because one could argue that by building houses it is improving social infrastructure; the provision of affordable homes meets the criteria. Section 106 agreements, which provide affordable homes for rent, housing facilities and health facilities, all meet those criteria. In addition, the definition could exclude those seeking to provide fair trade services, because they do not provide or improve social or environmental well-being in the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how that provision would actually be applied? Would it not, in fact, open the door to every business?

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about Barrett Homes. I draw his attention to subsection 5(d) of new clause 1, which refers to the business being

“majority-owned and controlled in the interests of improving the social or environmental well-being of the United Kingdom.”

Given that Barrett Homes has a substantial shareholder base, it would be difficult to justify in any court of law that it met that definition.

The hon. Gentleman's interesting point relates to Fairtrade, too, and if the Government accept the new clause, a small amendment in the other place could help to ensure that Fairtrade organisations were not excluded. I am open to the idea that his suggestion might work and I gently suggest that it would require the Minister to have a slightly more open mind than he demonstrated in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have more luck in encouraging the Minister behind the scenes than I did in Committee.

New clause 2 highlights the key role that local authorities will play in helping to grow the social enterprise sector. Indeed, many of the representations I have received about the Bill stress the importance of local authority commissioners for social enterprises. A requirement for a proper strategic look at the needs of social enterprises in each local authority area would mean that Conservative councils, desperate simply to privatise services, would have to at least to consider the merits of the social enterprise sector. They would do well to look at the example of the many Labour-run co-op councils around the country that are already doing much to encourage social enterprises to develop.

In Committee, a number of Members noted the danger of strategy documents gathering dust and achieving little, which none of us in the House of Commons would want to see. I accept that that is a risk, and new clause 3 is designed to help minimise that risk. I have been struck by the enthusiasm of many of the organisations included for consultation on new clause 3. New clause 3 requires an annual report to be laid before Parliament with the clear involvement through consultation of a diverse range of representative bodies from the sector and others, such as the National Audit Office, which, if it wanted to do so, could comment effectively on the success or otherwise of the commissioning for social value part of the Bill. The Charity Commission would be able to provide a view on the effectiveness of the Government’s strategy to encourage further charities that are social enterprises, while the Office for National Statistics clearly needs to be encouraged to develop statistics to enable the sector’s strength and performance to be properly understood.

Evidence-based policy making and proper evaluation of what has worked and what has happened so that one can learn from mistakes is surely always a sensible approach for Ministers and Parliament to encourage. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, Social Enterprise UK and Co-operatives UK are all strong, excellent bodies that could offer insightful comments to help Ministers and, crucially, Parliament, to assess the effectiveness of the Government’s policies for encouraging the sector to grow.

I was struck by the recent Public Administration Committee’s report “Change in Government: the agenda for leadership”, published in September. The Committee noted the Prime Minister’s promise on, among other things,

“re-empowering…communities as part of the ‘Big Society’”.

Two paragraphs on, it stated:

“The principal message of this report is that unless there is a comprehensive change programme for government, there will be little of the real change”

that the Conservative manifesto promised. There are three new clauses before the House today that all offer the chance of that comprehensive change programme for social enterprise to be embedded across Whitehall.

My final point on the three new clauses is to draw the House’s attention to the new suggested definition for the sector. In Committee and in her intervention today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) rightly raised the issue of an asset lock to protect taxpayers’ assets to stop them simply being transferred to the private sector. In Committee, my right hon. Friend received support for the principle of an asset lock from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and even from the Minister.

As I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), subsection 5(d) of new clause 1 seeks to add a key description to the definition of social enterprise which locks in any public assets transfer to the social enterprise. That matters because the Opposition remember the bus privatisation scandal of the 1980s. The bus industry was transferred lock, stock and barrel from public ownership to employee mutuals. It was not that long before the employee mutuals handed themselves over to what had become big corporate bus businesses. Those businesses gained the assets on the cheap while the community and employees lost some of the social value implicit in those public assets, which were taken out as profits of those private businesses to reward their shareholders.

I do not criticise the entrepreneurs who set up and now run the bus industry, as the rules at the time allowed them to do what they did. I am certainly not against privatisation. It has its place, although that is not everywhere and not all the time. If that is the Government’s intention for an industry or a particular part of a sector, however, we should have proper, transparent debate about its merits.