Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I am not funded by unions—or Russia—so before I even get on to the Bill, it is important for me to highlight the fact that the laws on trade unions in the UK are already among the most restrictive in Europe. Ministers claim that such Bills are common in France, Spain and Germany, but they leave out the fact that this Bill is much harsher than any of the examples that they cite. UK workers will lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal, for instance. Ministers also claim that the Bill is about ensuring that a minimum level of service is available for the health and safety of the public, when they know fine well that life-and-limb agreements are already in place.

The truth is that this Bill is designed to undermine and attack both workers’ rights and democracy. It carves out yet another door through which Westminster can further erode and undermine the Scottish Parliament. It is so bad that it might fall foul of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right of workers to assemble as they wish—the very same convention that the Tories want to take us out of. I wonder why.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Are we not seeing a pattern of behaviour? When the Government could not reach the child poverty targets, they scrapped them. What they are doing now is moving the goalposts and introducing a hostile environment and hostile legislation to attack workers’ rights and human rights.

[Mhairi Black]

Absolutely—and that leads me neatly to my next point.

I have previously spoken about the dangers of sleepwalking into fascism if we are not careful. I did not say it lightly then and I do not say it lightly now, but history is undeniable. The slide into authoritarian and anti-democratic politics has always been underpinned by anti-trade union rhetoric. Over the years, we have listened to countless right-wing politicians and Governments claiming that Brexit would in no way affect workers’ rights, yet here we are.

The reason trade unions organise industrial action is that it works. It has always been the only language that those who hold power understand. The only reason any worker has any rights at all is the existence of trade unions, and the ability of workers to organise collectively in defence of their jobs and their livelihoods. People who bleat about the disruption that strike action causes are missing the point entirely. If your day is disrupted by someone not turning up to their job, it just goes to show how crucial that person’s job is, and why their pay and conditions should reflect that.

There is another myth that I have heard. In fact, people do not undertake strike action lightly. Strikers lose money. Strike action indicates a crisis. Our nurses, doctors, teachers, cleaners and supermarket workers are the very people who have kept the world turning through a global pandemic, a cost of living crisis and 13 years of Tory austerity, but this Government choose to ignore and demoralise them at every turn. This Government would rather blame striking workers than acknowledge the fact that the root causes of strike action lie directly at their door. We have the lowest pensions and sick pay in Europe, we still do not have a living wage and we are living in economic chaos, with inequality getting worse.

The only people who are putting the health and safety of the public at risk are the members of this Government —a Government run for Twitter; a Government of clicks and culture wars, with no serious answers. Ultimately, trade unions work, and that is exactly why the Tories are going after them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I ask myself what problem so afflicts the British state that its Government see fit to bring forward a major piece of primary legislation. Is it really the case that militant pickets are preventing people from getting life-saving treatment? Is it the case that callous trade unionists are refusing to negotiate life-and-limb emergency cover, and that people are dying as a consequence? The answer to all those questions is no. In fact, we know of countless stories in which trade unionists have left their picket-line protests to make sure that people do not die. When I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to say how many lives would be saved by this legislation, he refused to answer, perhaps because the answer is none.

So why is this Bill being introduced? I think the answer is quite simple. We are approaching the fag end of this Tory Government. Their poll ratings are in the toilet, their members are disillusioned and their Back-Bench MPs are increasingly despairing about their own survival. In a desperate attempt to revive their fortunes, they are trying to resurrect the strategy of the Thatcherites a generation ago. They are trying to monster ordinary working people who are fighting for their rights. They are trying to pretend that ordinary working people are other, that they are somehow against the public interest and are therefore not deserving of public support, but it will not work this time, because they have gone too far and there are too many people involved. There is not a family in this land who do not know someone caught up in this dispute and who do not recognise the justice of their cause, so the Government will not be able to do it this time round.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we speak, firefighters who ran into Grenfell are suffering and dying from cancer, and it is workers like them who will be prevented from protesting and striking? That continues to be a disgrace.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

After such a smooth start, it is good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. It provides me with an opportunity to thank you for and congratulate you on your flawless oversight and running of the private Members’ Bill ballot. Indeed, you showed impeccable taste even when picking numbers out of the hat. Seriously, however, you can be very pleased with the range of Bills before Parliament today.

I also welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), to her place and wish her well. I was grateful to meet her predecessor and his officials to discuss the Bill and work together on it, and I appreciate the new Minister having ensured that that work can continue in the week since her appointment. I hope that she is as enthusiastic about this Bill as both her predecessor and I am—I am sure she will be and, from our first discussions, I know that she definitely is.

We should all be enthusiastic about this brilliant Bill, which I know will make such a huge difference to tens of thousands of families each and every year. That is because it paves the way for the introduction of neonatal care leave and pay. I am grateful to all the hon. Members in the Chamber for being here to consider this proposal and, I very much hope, to support it. We will never be able to get rid of the stress, anxiety, doubts, questions and trauma that so many families experience when their baby is in neonatal care, but what we can and must do is help to relieve some of the practical and financial challenges that accompany that experience.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am delighted to see the Bill come to the Floor of the House, and I know that other hon. Members have sought to bring it previously and have done a huge amount of work in this area. I hope that the Government put their full weight behind it. My constituent Coady Dorman does a lot of work with Bliss, as my hon. Friend will know. She had a premature son, Matthew. He is now thriving, but she spoke about the months she spent going to see him in neonatal care and how different the experience was, and how different maternity leave was after that. She told of the stress and strain of having to worry about money all during that time. My hon. Friend’s Bill will, we hope, take away some of that stress.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Hearing about those experiences is precisely what has prompted my bringing this Bill forward today. Campaigns groups such as Bliss and The Smallest Things, which I will come to in a moment, have really driven this forward. As she alluded to, there are Members in the Chamber today with personal experience of having a baby in neonatal care, which makes them the best advocates for this cause so I am grateful for their participation. Many of them, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), have been passionate and articulate campaigners for reform for a considerable time.

I am pleased to say that we are joined in the Gallery today by people from Bliss and The Smallest Things, representing families who have direct experience of the challenges around neonatal care; I am immensely grateful to them and so many other organisations and individuals for their help and support in taking this Bill forward and for the campaign they have been driving since long before I was elected to this place. I hope that the families with lived experience of neonatal care who are watching today will be satisfied that we have represented the issues they have faced, and are facing now, with the careful consideration and compassion they deserve.

The Office for National Statistics reports that an estimated 100,000 babies every year across the UK are admitted to neonatal care following their birth. Many of those babies spend prolonged periods of time on a neonatal care unit in a hospital as a result of being born prematurely or with other health conditions. That is, of course, an incredibly worrying and stressful time for parents, and their extended families. All our hearts go out to everyone who has found themselves in that position. Parents will naturally want to be able to focus their attention simply on getting through that period, supporting each other and their newborn. There is an emotional imperative to be with their babies, but there is also a practical one: those vulnerable, little children need their parents, and those parents need to be with their wee ones. As the charity Bliss has highlighted,

“parental presence on a neonatal unit is essential. Babies have the best developmental outcomes when their parents can deliver hands-on care.”

However, some families struggle to do that while keeping in employment and earning a living. Fathers get two weeks of statutory paternity leave. That is good, but when those two weeks run out, they must be called back to work while their baby is still in hospital. How can any parent be expected to focus at work while their sick baby is undergoing life-saving, life-changing neonatal care?

When babies have an extended stay in hospital at the start of their life, mothers report that 39 weeks of paid maternity leave does not give them enough time. That gets used up during the neonatal care and they do not feel that they have enough time at home with their baby before they need to go back to work. Some mothers may choose to leave work as a result. Indeed, research by The Smallest Things shows that one in 10 mothers were not able to return to work due to the ongoing needs of their babies who had required neonatal care.

That research also highlights two incredibly concerning statistics, which are perhaps unsurprising given the emotional trauma of a baby being born premature or sick. The charity reports that 77% of parents said they experienced anxiety after neonatal care, and that nearly a quarter had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after neonatal intensive care. In short, The Smallest Things concludes that we need to strengthen the statutory rights and support offered to these parents because that

“would give parents the emotional and financial support needed at a time of great stress and trauma – in turn leading to better postnatal health, a more positive return to work and better outcomes for children born prematurely.”

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). When I told him that he had come top of the private Member’s Bills ballot, he thought that I was just someone who was interested, notwithstanding what happened earlier. It was actually because I was so keen to see this Bill come forward. This is a Bill that I sought to introduce in 2018 via the ten-minute rule. It is a testament to how generous and warm my hon. Friend is that he has been presented with this opportunity by winning the parliamentary lottery. Many of us would like to see the private Member’s Bill process reformed, but I am incredibly grateful to him and will be forever in his debt that he has taken the Bill on.

Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). He and I have been discussing and meeting about this issue. I have questioned him on the Floor of the House for a very long time about it. It became clear that, in the absence of an employment Bill, the most sensible way of dealing with it, particularly given the cross-party support we have, was to decouple it and take this as a stand-alone Bill. I am glad we are going down that route.

I would like to pay tribute to and recognise a few other people, particularly Catriona Ogilvy from The Smallest Things, and Josie Anderson and Beth McCleverty from Bliss. I have been working with them for years on this, and the fact that we are finally seeing the Bill go through the House is a point of enormous pride. It is the culmination of many years of work by not just MPs, which I will come to in a moment, but, most importantly, parents whose children are born premature or sick.

This is actually politics at its best. It is no secret that I am not a fan of this place, and I do everything every single day to try to get out of here, but if the House will indulge me for one moment, this is probably one of the best moments we have had here, because we are seeing politicians coming together, putting party politics aside and using their personal experience.

One of the reasons the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies works so well is that the officers of that group all have one thing in common. It is not the fact that they are Members of Parliament; it is that they are the parents of premature and sick-born babies. I want to thank the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who have come together to put party politics and indeed constitutional politics aside to ensure that we do deliver for those families.

This Bill is not particularly controversial. It is a relatively short Bill and the budget line only commits to about £15 million, as the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate said, in the 2023 Budget, but it will have a massive impact on the families of those 90,000 to 100,000 babies who every year are born in the UK and spend time in neonatal care.

As the House will recall, both of my children—Isaac and Jessica—were born premature. In Isaac’s case, we only had about 14 weeks from finding out that he was going to arrive to his coming into the world. I still remember that moment when it moved to an emergency caesarean and being whipped away to a neonatal intensive care unit, and the real worry going through that time. In both cases—for both my children—my parental leave was well up by the time we got out of hospital. In the case of my daughter Jessica, who is now three years old, she spent roughly the first year of her life on oxygen and many weeks and months in the neonatal intensive care unit.

The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate hit the nail on the head when he talked about the mental health impact that this has on parents. I still remember vividly, and will until my dying day, watching my daughter turn blue in the incubator, with noises, alarms and lights all going off and neonatal nurses rushing in to resuscitate her. The idea that we as legislators would expect our constituents to be at work when that is happening or, worse still, to do a shift after that is something we are putting right today, because that is a historical wrong.

There is also the point that employers will not get the best out of their employees when they are sitting at work and staring into space, worrying whether or not their child is going to make it through the day. They are also not going to be in a good space when they realise that mum is back in the neonatal intensive care ward and doctors are coming round to talk about the massive consequential decisions that families have to take, while the dad, or another parent perhaps, is sitting in front of a computer in the office. That is why this is so important.

There are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has said, good employers out there already: Sony Music, Waltham Forest Council, South Ayrshire Council all have innovative policies in place. Interestingly, we have a big debate in this House about proxy voting. As far as I understand it, proxy voting still does not have provision for neonatal care leave. Although there will be a period before we can get Royal Assent, this House could get its own house in order by ensuring that we have some form of neonatal leave immediately with proxy voting.

[Hannah Bardell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work he has done over many years on this issue. My own chief of staff, Stephanie, had her twin girls—Abi and Jessica—during the deepest, darkest lockdown of the winter of 2020. She had the pressure of having two premature babies, being quite ill and having to go in and out of the neonatal unit. So much of what he says rings true, and I hope I did what I could as an employer, but I felt that my hands were tied by the rules of this place. I remember trying to give her all the support I could, but her partner worked offshore and had to go back offshore; he could not even be in the same place as her after that. Does my hon. Friend agree that everything he says and everything this Bill brings forward will be so important to our constituents, our staff and staff the length and breadth of the country? It should not be left up to individual businesses to make policies; this needs to be in legislation.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As well as reforming some of the issues around proxy voting in this place, which I accept impacts only a small amount of us, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is responsible for setting many of the policies and conditions on how Members of the House employ staff, could do a lot more not just on guidance but to reform the rules.

There are a number of good employers out there—I have mentioned them already—but one thing we saw as a result of the P&O scandal is that, sadly, far too many employers are too tempted to gild the lily, cut corners and undercut their staff. I am conscious that there is cross-party consensus this morning, but I will not depart from the belief that the sooner we have an employment Bill before the House, the better so we could try to deal with some of the other issues, such as the excellent proposition on miscarriage leave made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). It is important that the Minister considers how we could bring forward an employment Bill. However, ultimately, this Bill will end the lottery that far too many employees across these islands have to deal with. I agree with the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate about the need to expedite the Bill. I still have a concern that, although the Bill will be read a Second time today, we should get it into Committee as soon as possible, and to the Lords. My preference would be to do all stages on the Floor of the House. There is precedent for that. Given the immense cross-party agreement on this, we could get the Bill through in a couple of hours.

I put a direct challenge to whoever the two final candidates are for Prime Minister. I understand that whoever becomes Prime Minister will be enormously tempted to call a snap election. The danger with doing that is that the House would prorogue and the Bill would not receive Royal Assent. I would like a commitment from both candidates that they will not play fast and loose with that.

There are many more things that we can do to try to support families who have had premature or sick babies. We need to look at the neonatal workforce. That is a ticking time bomb that will go off in about 10 years’ time. We need to look at the school admissions code, certainly in England, and look across the UK at the poor hospital accommodation for parents. Far too many parents have to stay in hotels well off site. That is particularly challenging for mothers who are breastfeeding and there are all sorts of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East referred to the neonatal expenses fund that we have in Scotland. We are incredibly lucky to have that, but it is not available to our friends in other parts of these islands.

Finally, we will have to look at the postcode lottery and the desert of counselling that exists across health boards and NHS trusts. It has been well rehearsed this morning that having a baby who is born premature or sick can have a serious detrimental impact on the mental health of parents and frankly it is just luck whether they get that support at that time. I very much look forward to the Bill going to Committee, ensuring that it passes through the House speedily and can receive Royal Assent. I commend it to the House.

Potential for a Hydrogen Village

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

I will call Justin Madders to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential for a hydrogen village.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. Many Members in the north-west and north Wales have mentioned the genuine interest in, and support for, the HyNet project. Speaking as the Member for an area where industry consumes about 5% of the whole country’s total energy consumption, I am only too conscious of the need for us to change if we are to meet our climate commitments. Faced with that fact, the companies that are responsible for a lot of those emissions have been working together to address the future and are working on a whole series of projects that will contribute to our reaching net zero while also enhancing the local economy.

We were very pleased to have the HyNet project approved for the first industrial cluster last year. With our unbeatable combination of industry and geology, we believe that we can transition to a hydrogen-based economy with carbon capture more quickly than just about anyone else. Our current infrastructure can be easily converted to operate with hydrogen, and HyNet believes that it can capture up to 800,000 tonnes of CO₂ every year.

It is exciting that my constituents potentially have a big part to play in this endeavour, and it is hoped that the area of Whitby in Ellesmere Port will be confirmed next year as the location for a hydrogen village programme. The natural gas running through local pipes in the area would be changed to hydrogen from 2025, and Whitby has been identified as an ideal place to host the hydrogen village programme, largely due to its closeness to HyNet:

“The Hydrogen Village is a really exciting project where local homes and businesses would be able to reduce their emissions—while continuing to build the North West’s reputation as a leader in the hydrogen economy”.

It also means that we can back UK manufacturing jobs, but as always with these things, the maximum benefit will be found if we can take the maximum number of people with us.

That means not only showing people that it is a good thing for everyone if they are at the spearhead of a new way of heating our homes, and that they can play a big role in meeting our net zero targets. It also means ensuring that people feel that things are being done with their consent and agreement, rather than them being done to them. Of course, a big part of that will be communication, and I know that Cadent has already begun working on ways to advise residents about the project and will be opening a new shop in the town in July, so that residents can find out more.

Obviously, residents will have legitimate questions, and I imagine that they will want to know about the potential costs, their safety and the level of disruption they will face. From the information I have had to date, I think that all those concerns can be dealt with. With the rapidly increasing energy bills that we all face, I would hope that the cost issue will be a positive for my constituents, with at least a guarantee that they will not pay any more for their energy. I hope that there is scope for us to go further than that and be able to offer them a discount. It is early days, but the only inquiries that I have had so far from constituents are about why people have not been included in the trial, which demonstrates the positive spirit of the people of Ellesmere Port, their willingness to embrace the future, and their eagerness to play their part in tackling climate change.

Endometriosis Workplace Support

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace.

What a pleasure it is to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Davies.

It would take 20 days, at 24 hours a day, to name every woman in this country who suffers from endometriosis. That is the scale of the problem that we are dealing with. It is bad enough that it takes eight years on average to get a diagnosis, and that there is a lack of settled opinion on the surgery required. It is also bad enough that the blunt truth is that, even in today’s age, the main coverage given to this debilitating disease seems to be when a man stands up and talks about it. I have fantastic support from people such as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and other hon. Members, who have supported at every step of the way the debates that I have brought to the House; there is absolute cross-party support for tackling women’s health issues.

Unfortunately, I am often asked, “Why are you doing this, as a man?” I remind people that as Members, we represent everybody in our constituencies, and for most of us, probably over 50% of our constituents are women. It seems bizarre to question why a Member of Parliament would raise issues about the opposite sex; to me, a constituent is a constituent. Endometriosis is such a wide-ranging affliction that affects so many women, and it is so unrecognised.

Today I seek to talk about women’s suffering in the workplace, which mainly comes about through a complete lack of knowledge about this disease. I will start by describing endometriosis. I am grateful to Heather Guidone, board certified patient advocate and surgical programme director at the Centre for Endometriosis Care, for sending me the text entitled “A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, which states:

“Endometriosis is a systemic, inflammatory disease characterized by the presence of endometrial-like tissue found outside the uterus. Endometriosis has significantly negative impact on the physical, emotional, reproductive, and sexual health, financial security, relationships, careers and schooling of those affected. Commonly located in the abdominopelvic region, the disease has also been found in virtually every organ system including the lungs. Mistakenly referred to by some as simply ‘painful periods,’ symptoms are not limited to menstruation and often become chronic over time. It is also entirely possible for those who do not menstruate e.g., adolescents, post-hysterectomy, post-menopause to struggle with endometriosis. This extraordinarily complex illness has body-wide impact, with sustained inflammation, angiogenesis, adhesions, fibrosis, scarring, and local and neuronal infiltration leading to a multitude of systemic issues. Chronic pain, anatomic distortion, adhesions, organ dysfunction, non-menstrual abdominal and pelvic pain, infertility and pregnancy loss, painful sex, bowel and bladder pain and dysfunction, lower back and leg pain, severe bloating, crippling fatigue, debilitating period pain among those who menstruate, even lung collapse and much more are hallmark of endometriosis. Despite the preponderance of systemic symptoms and effects, however, many patient complaints are unfortunately trivialized or outright dismissed at the healthcare level. The disease is also rarely present alone and is commonly associated with multiple comorbidities and secondary pain drivers including various gynepathologies; chronic fatigue; coronary heart disease; rheumatoid arthritis; adverse obstetrical outcomes like loss, preterm birth, spontaneous hemoperitoneum in pregnancy, obstetric bleeding, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia and more; painful bladder syndrome; and even an increased risk of certain cancers. Often called a ‘disease of theories,’ definitive causes have been under debate for over a century, yet no single theory yet explains endometriosis in all affected. Most likely, a composite of several mechanisms is involved.”

With millions of sufferers and long-standing recognition of the disease, it is shocking that women suffer such enormous discrimination in the workplace for a common disease. To summarise, I will quote from a paper I was sent by Victoria Williams, a researcher at the Open University, from her PhD thesis, “The experience of endometriosis in the workplace and the influence of menstrual policy: leaning to precarious work to manage a ‘precarious condition’”. She says:

“Endometriosis often hinders the ability to work to the same capacity every hour on every day of a traditional working calendar, and as such participants talked of not being able to hold down full time work, leading to multiple part time roles or precarious work situations, drawn by the flexibility they offered. However, the supposed flexibility is often a double bind with lack of stable contracts, loss of state provisioning and the financial impact of having to take time off for surgery (often multiple surgeries). As such, precarious work may be appealing to people with endometriosis because of the promise of flexibility but they may equally feel and be even less protected.”

I want to expand on that by talking about the sufferers of this terrible disease and the effects it has in the workplace.

We have all been ill. Unfortunately, we have all had a rather nasty stomach upset at some point. We may have been at work when we were suddenly taken short and had to nip out to the bathroom. I do not want to get too graphic—we all know what that feels like. I am sure we have all had a very embarrassing incident at some point in our life. Mr Davies, can you imagine experiencing that fear—and, indeed, that incident—every single day in the workplace?

I have been given examples of that particular situation by women who have been at work, in a meeting, when a sudden bowel movement has given them seconds to get out and get to the right place. Yet one person who gave me such an example told me that her employers tutted and said she was unreliable: “She’s always nipping off to the bathroom.” I do not believe that people are mean or bad. I fundamentally believe that most human beings in society want to do the right thing by people, but if people do not know about the situation, ignorance can have some very nasty consequences. We have to start raising a higher level of awareness of this issue.

National Endometriosis Survivors Support has sent me a catalogue of quotations, with more than 60 patients outlining their experiences. I am going to share about 20 of them with hon. Members.

No.1:

“Having endometriosis has made my career a mine field. I cannot progress how I wish to due to time taken off sick. I have been undermined and people have compared my condition to other conditions with complete ignorance:—suggesting that I was exaggerating my symptoms. Working life is not compatible with suffering from endometriosis—it’s too much and no one understands!”

No. 2:

“I was asked what I was going to do to make things better and stop myself being sick. It’s an incurable disease.’

No. 3:

“I’ve almost lost my job due to discrimination because I couldn’t work as fast when I was in crippling pain.”

No. 4:

“Almost lost my job in a major company despite them saying they’d treat endometriosis occasions of absence separately that wasn’t the case. Also wouldn’t let me home when I was covered in blood to change my clothes and made me go purchase new clothes and told me to use work showers.”

No. 5:

“I was in hospital due to my endo a little over a month ago, I couldn’t walk. Had to call in for work, which I rarely do unless I genuinely can’t help it, they asked if I was being admitted because if I wasn’t they wanted me to ‘make up for it’ by working the next day.”

These are real experiences from real people in the workplace. There is lots of evidence out there.

No. 6:

“Due to the fact that I had two laparoscopies, I had a large gap in my employment record. Despite a very good CV, my applications were rejected because employers saw only the employment gap.”

No. 7:

“I haven’t been able to work for 7 years now and it depressing.”

No. 8:

“Was misdiagnosed as IBS for 4 yrs, my boss said I was exaggerating it, refused to let me do flexi time to help. After surgery, I was signed off for an additional week, and when I called to tell her, she swore and slammed the phone down. Ended up severely depressed. I was suicidal. She brushed it off, and kept calling me Menopausal Mandy.”

I have said it before on the Floor of the House and I will say it again: women are dying. They are killing themselves. They are spending day after day in chronic, crippling pain and do not even have the support of a workplace. That level of destruction of women’s lives is killing women, and it has got to stop. We have to get a better understanding of what millions of women are going through in this country.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful speech. The issue is absolutely about conditions like endometriosis, but does he agree that it is also about a basic lack of compassion for women who have periods every month? In January, Dr Rosie Baruah backed the British Medical Association’s call for period products to be provided in all NHS staff toilets. She said the products should be viewed as a basic necessity, not a luxury. The outcry from some men was utterly appalling. The lack of understanding of how challenging it can be for someone when they bleed through their clothes and do not have access to products or toilets was shocking. We need to do much more to get a basic understanding across society and to put policies in place—for endometriosis, but also just for periods.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, who raises a point that comes up time and again. I do not believe that the majority of people are that unkind, but they just do not know what they are talking about. Her point speaks to a wider issue. People think it is acceptable for there to be an outcry about supporting women in the workplace. That is the problem we face. We have to change societal thinking on these issues.

I will continue sharing the experiences of patients. No. 9:

“I have to use my annual leave after operations in case I get ill during the year and need time off.”

No. 10:

“The problem, they find another way to get you out. They go for competency & make your life hell, picking up on every little point & you don’t have a leg to stand on. I’m so miserable at the moment.”

No. 11:

“This debate couldn’t come at a better time my boss is starting to give me a rough time because I was really rough last week and I even collapsed in work and ended up in hospital and he still expected me to be back in work the following day and this week he gave me a warning letter about my days off and now it’s really worrying me.”

No. 12:

“I was off sick and recently dismissed whilst off sick.”

No. 13:

“I lost my job years ago due to having a few periods off sick for surgeries and some emergency surgeries. All of these were for endometriosis. I worked for the NHS!!! They don’t care whether you have genuine reasons or not, other people take time off for a common cold etc whereas I went to work in severe pain most days; but the hard work I put in was not appreciated.”

What we are dealing with here is constructive dismissal, which is illegal in this country, but is just being swept under the carpet.

No. 14:

“I’ve unfortunately been put on redundancy notice. My Endometriosis sickness has been scored against me as well as my productivity not being the same as everyone else. I have an occupational health report stating to reconsider my targets due to me taking codeine to manage the pain. My question is, is Endometriosis classed as a disability? Is this discrimination?”

No. 15:

“At 18 I was sacked from a nursing home due to having too many days off related to endometriosis flare ups.”

No. 16:

“I was recently dismissed from work whilst off sick because I was off so long so now jobless. I’m 35.”

No. 17:

“I’m 28 currently in full time work but due to the lack of knowledge of this awful disease I’m currently under investigation for fitness to do my job. I work in a nursery. This is all due to having sick days (which I don’t get paid for). With more knowledge and research more women wouldn’t have to try and fight with their management to prove they are sick and can still do their job.”

No. 18:

“At age 21 I was dismissed for having too many sick days due to endo. At age 25 my contract was terminated while I was laid in a hospital bed, after emergency surgery due to endo. At age 28 my job was suspended and then terminated due to them not believing the reasons for absence, i.e. Endometriosis, and I was laid in a hospital bed the day I had my hysterectomy when they emailed me to tell me. I’m 29 now.”

No. 19:

“I was forced to resign from my permanent teaching position while I waited for surgery. The new head didn’t believe how ill I was. I’m much better off mentally being self employed, but not financially.”

I emphasise the examples about teaching and the NHS. When we raise such issues, people sometimes think that we are talking about private employers. We may have a vision of the bad boss who says, “Silly woman!” and that sort of thing, but I am actually giving examples from the public sector. I will be bringing forward debates later this year for the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to respond to, but does not the fact that a teacher was dismissed because the headteacher did not understand endometriosis paint an even more worrying picture—that girls are not being told what a healthy period is, and none of them knows what this disease is? How can someone possibly know that they have a disease if they do not know that that disease exists?

The examples are piling up. I had over 60 examples, which I have whittled down to this list. Here is the final quotation on this point:

“Benefits—DWP are not recognising endo as a disease/pushing you to work. When I have completed a work capability assessment they found me suitable for work, have had to push again for a mandatory reconsideration. This goes for UC & PIP as I am currently going through the process of both.”

However, there were some positives. One person said:

“From age 11 I spent the week off school each time my period arrived. I couldn’t move as the pain was too much and so heavy I was changing pads far too often than would be allowed to leave a class to go to the toilet. The school called me and my mum in for a meeting and I was made to go in or face a disciplinary. Quite a few times I bled through which meant taking spare clothes. As a teenager this was mortifying. Now as an adult (32) I have made my employers and colleagues aware and I’m in a job where I can just nip to the toilet. I am also very lucky to have supportive colleagues that help when I am doubled over.”

Here is another one:

“When I was 14 I was sent home from school for being violently sick. Kept being sick continuously until later that day my time of the month started. I work in a pub and over the last 5 years have collapsed in the bathroom, in the back room. I have to have moments in the back room because I’m in so much pain I can’t stand up. Let alone smile at customers. I’ve been sent home a few times when it becomes clear there is no way it is possible for me to stay there. I have to have extra time to sit down and my boss and I have had to put lifting bans in place or by the end of the night, when I start off OK, I can’t walk and I’m in agony from lifting too much and pulling all the organs around. I often have to sleep for hours the day after to try and recover from my shift as it physically takes it out of me and I find it increasingly hard to push through. Thankfully I have a really supportive team or I wouldn’t be able to support myself to live. But I think back to previous bosses and all I can think is how I wouldn’t be there anymore if I still had any of them. Because they wouldn’t have tolerated and accommodated my health.”

In 2020, the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis published an inquiry, some of which I will read out. This is about the impact of a supportive employer:

“For the last 9 months I have missed almost a week per month, but my work have been very supportive of this as they know I have been undergoing tests. I am very lucky to have an employer who is so understanding”

Another woman said:

“Only one workplace classified me as having a disability which was extremely helpful on days where I was in pain, my boss was fully informed and would have no issue with me saying to her, I have to head home straight away, and I will be back in 2 days.”

Here is another one:

“I have been very lucky that my work have been wonderful. They make adjustments for me working from home when needed and it’s no problem if I can’t work because I’m in too much pain.”

The report also talked about employee rights and employer obligations. The Equality Act 2010 states that a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that

“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on…ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

When endometriosis is debilitating, due to the symptoms experienced and/or the long-term impact of surgery, it meets the Act’s definition of disability, as with other chronic conditions.

Employees with endometriosis who experience debilitating symptoms have the right to ask their employer for reasonable adjustments at work that would enable the individual to continue working or would reduce the disadvantage suffered due to having a disability, in this case a chronic condition. Reasonable adjustments include, though are not limited to, flexible or reduced working hours; reassigning work or duties; time off for medical appointments; and working from home. Employers must consider requests for reasonable adjustments and cover the cost of adjustments agreed. However, we know of cases where women with endometriosis have requested reasonable adjustments, for example, to work a particular shift pattern or reduce working hours, and have had those requests refused.

The pandemic has had a significant impact. The report on endometriosis and working from home says:

“Both the 2020 APPG inquiry and our 2021 Covid Impact Survey found that those with endometriosis who were able to work from home reported it as a positive development, in particular in relation to better managing symptoms, including…Being able to undertake physical pain management techniques more easily…Being able to take breaks/lie down when needed…Not having to commute to work when experiencing painful symptoms.

Some reported a positive impact on mental health due to enabling better symptom management.

Our 2021 Covid Impact Survey found that 69% of those working entirely from home found it positive, as did 51% of those working partly from home.”

Respondents to the 2020 APPG inquiry made comments about the positive impact of working from home:

“Now have option of working from home, so this helps with not having time sick and then missing pay.”

“I am lucky with my work now I am able to work from home if too unwell to travel.”

“I work from home so I got my hours around the times I feel okay. When my symptoms are bad I am often so tired I just have to sleep for most of the day.”

It is not a completely negative story that I am painting today. There are good employers out there and good examples of where employers have been able to work around it. That brings me on to endometriosis-friendly employers. Endometriosis UK has an endometriosis-friendly employer scheme, which supports organisations to make simple adjustments for those with endometriosis to work effectively while managing a chronic condition. Employers sign up to the endometriosis-friendly employer principles and commit to working to implement them. The principles are: leadership and management support; tackling stigma and cultural change; communications to increase awareness of endometriosis; and promoting the support available for employees with the condition.

We can draw quite a lot of comfort from that, but I put to the Minister that we have got to push that out to employers. I am not going to ask the Minister for new legislation, for new Bills to come forward to the House. I believe that there is plenty of law in place, but it is not being properly used. That is more than likely because employers do not know about this terrible, debilitating disease.

As I draw to a conclusion, I would like to highlight the opportunity to link the issue with the menopause taskforce. The Government press release on Friday stated:

“Minister for Women’s Health and co-chair of the UK Menopause Taskforce Maria Caulfield, said: ‘For too long women have gone unsupported and unheard when it comes to specific women’s health issues. This is especially true when it comes to the understanding of and treatment for the menopause’ It was agreed the taskforce will meet every 2 months, and future meetings will be scheduled by theme which will include…healthcare provision…education and awareness…research evidence and data”,

and “menopause in the workplace”. So we are recognising one condition of women in the workplace—the menopause —but not recognising endometriosis. There is no taskforce out there to do that. I know this matter is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department. It will have to be something that works across Departments in many different ways.

There are still women at a huge disadvantage in the workplace when they try to start a family, especially those with fertility problems. I am grateful to Dr Larisa Corda for passing me information from an organisation called Fertility Matters at Work, who sent me the following statistics: 72% said that their workplace did not have a fertility policy in place; 83% said that covid-19 had made managing fertility treatment while at work easier; 68% said the treatment had a significant impact on their mental and emotional wellbeing; only 1.7% had a fertility policy that met their needs; and 69.5% took sick leave during the treatment.

Although this debate is primarily focused on supporting sufferers of endometriosis, I urge the Minister to look at the range of women’s barriers in the workplace that still exist today—in the 21st century! Our society should surely have moved beyond the glass ceiling. In fact, it is not so much a glass ceiling as bulletproof glass. There are probably weaker windows in President Biden’s Beast. The glass ceiling is almost impenetrable.

Perhaps today’s debate will start to move the issue forward, because we are going to keep the pressure up. I started this debate in October 2019. Then we had a general election and a pandemic, and we have had to start again. Can it be that nothing happened in two years because we were not raising it here, when we had already raised it in a debate in October 2019? It is important that we do not let this issue go.

I have five asks of the Minister today. First, promote the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme. Secondly, work with other Departments to interact with the menopause taskforce and the shocking lack of support for women with fertility problems. Thirdly, get the Department for Work and Pensions to recognise that endometriosis can be a disability. Fourthly, ensure employers fully understand the Equality Act to protect endometriosis sufferers in the workplace. Fifthly, create a scheme to promote endometriosis-friendly employers.

We are only halfway through this Parliament—I know it seems a lot longer. We have plenty of time to do plenty about the issue in this Parliament, and we have to. The time has come to settle this terrible, debilitating strain on women who are owed so much more. This society—never mind what the Government and Parliament do—is letting them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I once again congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on having raised this issue, and thank him for doing so. Less than a week ago, we were in this Chamber together debating the Cumberlege report and the terrible treatment of women who have suffered from the hormone pregnancy drug Primodos. It feels very much like we are here time and time again discussing how women are being systematically discriminated against in our society, in 2022 and 21 years since endometriosis was first debated in the House of Commons—Members may not know that. I read recently that the people who will lose out most when covid is over are women, who are less likely than men to return to work because of the challenges of childcare. It is always women who seem to lose out: as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, if this were a man’s issue, I suspect we would not even be having this debate. However, we need men in the debate and in the round, discussing with us and pushing ahead, because this issue will affect them, their families, their partners, their children and the people around them.

We all have local endometriosis groups in our constituency, and I pay tribute to those local groups, particularly to Candice and Claire from Endo Warriors West Lothian. They are both sufferers of endometriosis and they fight relentlessly for sufferers in their area. Endo Bonds is another Scottish group I have met with recently, and Endometriosis UK does fantastic work. As the new co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, along with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), we pay tribute to Sir David Amess and his work on the issue. He was an important and doughty champion for those who suffer from endometriosis.

It feels like endometriosis is to do with policies and legislation, which are dry, dull and boring, but it is the reality for women and endo-sufferers every single day of their lives that they are being discriminated against. That might not be the intention of the employer. I think it sometimes might be accidental, because the legislation and policies in place across the UK do not support, understand or recognise endometriosis as a chronic and debilitating condition that one in 10 women suffer from—so many women. It is a hidden condition and there is little or no awareness of it—although I think the hon. Member for Pontypridd is right that things are changing.

Sceptical and unaccommodating employers in the workplace can have a devastating impact on sufferers. In our APPG inquiry in 2020, we found that 55% of sufferers had taken time off work as a result of their endometriosis; 38% were afraid of losing their jobs due to the condition; and 35% reported reduced income as a result. One sufferer said,

“I left my teaching career due to the exhaustion of endometriosis. I loved education so took a position as a teaching assistant which saw a drop in finance of £18,000/year… I feel pressured not to take any other time off and work through pain frequently.”

The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell spoke passionately and graphically about the reality of endometriosis. As a woman who has had such bad periods that I have bled through at school, university and work, I know how embarrassing and devastating it can be, and I have what would be classed as relatively normal periods. Endometriosis sufferers are passing out in their workplaces or in the street. They are not able to get to the toilet or be given basic dignity. We are not in a third-world country, but it feels like that. The treatment of those who suffer from endometriosis feels like they are existing in a third-world country. Endometriosis is on the NHS’s list of the top 20 chronic pain conditions, but we would not know it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about chronic pain and the support for it, and that is incredibly important.

We are robbing women and those who suffer from endometriosis of the ability to maintain and progress in their careers and to provide for their families, and of financial stability and independence. So often, they experience devastating mental health problems. It should not have taken a global pandemic for us to review how we support flexibility in the workplace, but it has. The irony of the situation is that the waiting times for endometriosis are even worse than before the pandemic, but the pandemic has, in some ways, facilitated a rethink and a reimagining of what flexibility people need and should have at the very basic level, because trying to work or just live with endometriosis is debilitating. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Government of the day must recognise that, and employers and educational institutions need to be supportive and be given the information.

Endo Warriors West Lothian has developed the most incredible educational video for young people in schools, and the group worked with Professor Andrew Horne at the University of Edinburgh to develop and fund it. We want to roll it out across Scotland, the UK and the world, and we want to get content, policies and laws that support endometriosis sufferers to make sure they do not have to live in pain and suffer in the way that many of those who we are speaking up for do. I hope the Minister will listen and not just give lip service today but real tangible action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Davies.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive and excellent way in which he introduced the subject. He has done much to highlight the condition, raising awareness in this place and across the country. I echo the tribute paid to the late Member for Southend West, who was a tireless campaigner on endometriosis, having chaired the APPG in 2018.

Every hon. Member who spoke today made an excellent speech, all making similar points and stressing the importance of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke with great sincerity and passion. She hit the nail on the head about the importance of education on not just this issue, but other women’s health issues. She gave a good example from Wales of how the Welsh Assembly has been working on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke about her own experiences, as she has on previous occasions. Members who speak from their own experience send an important signal to those suffering out there that they are not alone and that there is help. It was good to hear about the positive experience that she had had with her employer. We should recognise and celebrate it when an employer does the right thing. As Members of Parliament, we should lead the way in ensuring that workplace rights are respected and upheld.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was absolutely right: I agree that endometriosis is not only a mainstream health issue, but a workplace issue. I was pleased that she quoted extensively from the Labour party green paper on employment rights, which the Minister may have a copy of any time he wants, should he seek inspiration for the employment Bill, which—as has been mentioned—we are still waiting for.

As Members may know, I have spoken in the past about the challenges that my wife has as a fibromyalgia sufferer, with debilitating physical symptoms, unpredictability and delays in getting diagnosis, and the lack of understanding among the public and employers. For me, there are a great many parallels between the two conditions. However, today we are talking about endometriosis.

We know from BBC research in 2019 that many sufferers reported a negative impact on their work, in particular when their symptoms were debilitating, to the extent that some were unable to work on a regular basis, and had no choice but to give up their job and seek benefits such as the employment and support allowance or personal independence payments, which I will come back to later.

As we have heard, the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis conducted a much-needed inquiry, which found that more than half of women affected had taken time off work as a direct result of their condition, and more than a third were afraid of losing their job due to their condition or reported reduced income as a result. Those are significant numbers, but of course, we are not just talking about numbers: we are talking about real people’s lives and the concerns and anxieties they face on a daily basis.

One respondent to the inquiry said:

“It’s been terrifying worrying about losing my only income. I’ve barely managed to keep my job, but I’ve lost opportunities as a consequence and it’s held my career back. I’ve been too unwell to do any training. Being so unwell has cost me lots financially.”

Another said:

“I feel pressured not to take any other time off and work through pain frequently. It has a negative impact on my mental health and general well-being.”

I am sure Members will agree that those examples, and the many others we have heard about today, are simply unacceptable. People should not be put in the invidious position of having to decide between their work and their health. Much more needs to be done to ensure that workplace support is available for all.

[Hannah Bardell]

Just on the point about workplace support, one of the things that I did not get a chance to mention is that there are some great examples out there. BBC Scotland has become an endo-friendly workplace, and Fiona Stalker, the journalist and presenter, has done a huge amount of work on this. She is herself a supporter, and she gave evidence to our Scottish evidence session and spoke passionately about the work she was doing. It is important that we recognise that there are some good examples out there, and that those employers can share their experience and what they are doing with others across the UK.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention: she did very well to get in that important reference to the good work that is happening up in Scotland. The relevant Government Departments can take a lead from examples such as those.

People have told us that employers lack understanding about this condition. They sometimes do not realise that it is an ongoing condition that requires ongoing treatment and multiple surgeries and, of course, involves debilitating pain. We really should not have to highlight those facts when we are talking about a recognised medical condition that affects 1.5 million people and certainly meets the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010. We need to make it easier for employers to feel comfortable talking about this condition with their staff, who will then in turn hopefully feel more supported in opening dialogue. Endometriosis UK provides much-needed support for employers in the form of information and guidance, but it is frustrating that workplace guidance from the Government themselves is still lacking. Given that we have an average diagnosis time of eight years, we could be doing so much more to tackle this problem.

Endometriosis meets the Equality Act’s definition of a disability and, therefore, the reasonable adjustments requirement. There are many ways that that requirement can be met, including through flexible working, reduced hours, reassigned work or duties, and time off for medical appointments. All those things can be done by most employers, but as we have heard, that does not always happen. That is why there is a call for endometriosis to be specifically referred to in the Equality Act as an example of a fluctuating and recurring condition that falls under the definition of a disability. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he could indicate whether that is something the Government intend to pursue.

As was mentioned earlier, there are areas in which statutory sick pay can be improved for sufferers of this condition. Outside the pandemic, SSP only applies after four days of sick leave, so somebody needing only two or three days of sick leave would not qualify. Of course, it is also the case that periods of the same cause of sick leave must be eight weeks apart or fewer to count as linked, which can exclude those with fluctuating endometriosis symptoms. It has also been noted that SSP is only available to an employee for a period of sickness for a maximum of three years, which, again, penalises people with chronic long-term conditions such as this. As we have said many times over the past few years, there are millions of people—in particular, many women in low-paid work—who do not qualify for SSP at all. More than two years ago, in the last debate, there was a commitment to engage fully with the APPG’s review, and a promise to improve how we handle benefits. Can the Minister update us on whether there has been any movement in that area, and what plans there are to review SSP for fluctuating conditions such as this?

On access to benefits, which I touched on earlier, respondents to the APPG inquiry reported being assessed by someone who did not understand the condition. Several respondents reported being told by DWP staff or contractors that endometriosis was not even considered a disability, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding, as well as showing that endometriosis needs some strengthening of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Those with endometriosis should not be told that they do not qualify for any support and have to appeal many times to get the support they are eligible for. One respondent, who had to go to tribunal to claim PIP, described the situation as “stressful and upsetting”. I am sure we all have constituents who have had to go through that rigmarole many times. Although I know it is not his Department, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us anything about how disability employment advisers are being supported to ensure that the right recognition is given.

As we have touched on already, some employers have not waited for the Government to bring forward guidance and have shown leadership and support by bringing in their own endometriosis-friendly employer schemes, which aim to provide support to organisations to make simple adjustments to help those with endometriosis to work effectively. It is very encouraging to hear that more than 80 employers have joined the scheme so far. They represent a wide range of organisations from financial services companies to medical technology companies, to police forces and NHS organisations.

We want all employers to provide their employees with the right support. There should be no excuse for any Department, or Parliament, not to be part of that scheme. I hope the Minister can tell us whether there have been any attempts to get a standard across the entire public sector. We have had a good debate today, but it is clear that we need to do more to encourage women to feel supported and to deal with this condition in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) not only on securing this debate, but on his bravura performance in setting out the case. He gave examples that were difficult to listen to, to help us to understand what women are going through on a day-to-day basis.

I thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful and insightful comments. I would just pick out two contributions: the personal experience of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and the example of his wife that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) shared. I thank them both for sharing those examples and what we can learn from them.

A number of Government Departments could have led the response to the debate, because endometriosis sits within a range of wider Government initiatives and strategies. The Department of Health and Social Care is developing the women’s health strategy. The Department for Work and Pensions and DHSC are following through on the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation response. The Government Equalities Office carries out wider work on equalities, and there is of course my Department’s work on labour market questions, such as how to make flexible working the default.

We each talk to businesses and employers on a range of issues. I am pleased to reflect the words of the “Women’s Health—Let’s talk about it” call for evidence. The more we talk about women’s health, the more we tackle the stigma and the taboos. Before I became a Minister, I was a vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health. I am really pleased that this issue is being debated today and that we keep on addressing it and tackling the stigma.

In the interests of time, I will not describe the condition of endometriosis again, but we know that it is a condition that can be especially debilitating for many people. There are some factors, such as time to diagnose, which can exacerbate the situation. Endometriosis has a debilitating impact on a significant number of women across the UK. A respondent to the call for evidence said:

“I have had my endometriosis over looked and just told it was period pain and to deal with it. ‘It’s part of being a woman.’…‘my period is normal and I am exaggerating my pain, it’s all in my head’.”.

That is just plain wrong. No one’s pain and discomfort should be dismissed out of hand and nobody should be told: “It’s just part of being a woman”. We have got to do better.

To understand how best to support people with endometriosis in the workplace, we need to look across the whole system—at educating society at large, at the health sector and at the role of employers, as well as individuals. Only in that way can we start doing the right things for women’s health.

We know that damaging taboos and stigmas remain around many areas of women’s health. They can prevent women from starting conversations in the first place about their health or seeking support for a health issue. When women do speak about their health, too often they are not listened to.

The Government are determined to tackle these issues, which is why we are embarking on the first women’s health strategy. Last year, on 23 December, the Government published “Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England”, alongside the results of the “Women’s Health—Let’s talk about it” survey. A number of priority areas for action came through that. On women’s voices, more than four out of five women feel, or are perceived to feel, comfortable talking to healthcare professionals about general physical health concerns. That falls to less than three in five women when discussing mental health conditions.

On information and education, as we have heard, my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell talked about teachers in schools. If we cannot get it right there, how will we get it right further down the line? Our ambition is for women to have access to high-quality information and education, starting from childhood and continuing right the way through to adulthood, to empower women to make informed decisions.

On access to services, just two in five respondents said that they, or the woman that they had in mind, can conveniently access the services they need in terms of location, and around one in four said the same in terms of timing. On health in the workplace, around one in three respondents said women feel comfortable talking about health issues in their workplace, and one in two said that their current or previous workplace had been supportive with regard to health issues. That clearly leaves a massive gap, which is why we need to go further.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister give us an indication of when that women’s health strategy will be implemented, because I know there has been a delay? Will he also make sure that it addresses the profound issues in terms of employment and the DWP? Those matters are not devolved to Scotland, but are still reserved to Westminster, and we will look closely and will want to work with him on those issues.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate that, and I will discuss the strategy going forward. Health in the workplace will be a priority area for that strategy. We want to support women and ensure that they feel supported in the workplace, that taboos are broken down through open conversation, and that employers feel well equipped to support women in managing their health in the workplace.

In addition, “Menstrual health and gynaecological conditions” will also be a chapter in the final strategy. It will explore ways to improve awareness and the care and treatment of those suffering with severe symptoms from conditions such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis, and PCOS. The strategy will set an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England, and it will be published later this year.

We are working to put flesh on the bones of the six priority areas. That will need to be marked by effective co-operation and collaboration across Whitehall. As an illustration of that collaboration and co-operation, the Government also have an active agenda on work and health more widely. We want employers and employees in the round, male and female, to have better interactions on work and health to improve employee retention. It is so important to address these issues from both sides of the lens.

I heard what Members said about the gender pay gap, and we could easily make a business case. Employers invest time and resource in training and developing people’s experiences, so why on earth would they then want to lose someone with a long-term debilitating disease and have to start the entire process again? They should do the right thing.

The Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation was published in July last year. It sets out some of the measures that we will take to protect and maintain the progress made to reduce ill-health-related job losses, and will see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 to 2027. The consultation was not specifically on endometriosis, because it did not specify any health conditions. It looked at system-level measures to support employers and employees to manage any health condition or disability in the workplace. We are looking at providing greater clarity around employer and employee rights and responsibilities, with a national digital information and advice service.

We are working with HSE to develop a set of clear and simple principles that employers would be expected to apply. We are increasing access to occupational health, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that we know are currently underserved. Although the measures are not endometriosis-specific, they are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy looks at labour market regulation. We are responsible for a policy that has been mentioned and which we know can be helpful for those who suffer from endometriosis: flexible working. I must correct the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). Flexible working did come out of the pandemic; it started under the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). We have been able to reset our understanding of flexible working in the light of the pandemic.

A respondent to the women’s health strategy call for evidence said:

“Working from home has helped me hugely, as it gives me flexibility to work in ways that are more comfortable for my body. I can work from my bed on a bad day, or have a hot water bottle on my stomach when I have cramps.”

We are taking forward the manifesto commitment to consult on making flexible working the default, unless employers have good reasons not to do so. That consultation contained measures that would increase the availability and the support of the uptake of flexible working arrangements, including whether to extend the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment. By making it easier for everybody to access flexible working, we hope to help those who may need it most, including women suffering from endometriosis.

That consultation closed on 1 December, having received more than 1,600 responses. We are going through those now and will come back in due course. That consultation also introduced plans for a future call for evidence on the subject of ad hoc flexible working, where we want to explore how non-contractual flexibility works in practice. I discussed that with the flexible working taskforce on Monday. We will ensure that the role of ad hoc flexible working, in supporting women with health conditions, is part of its considerations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell had five questions. We absolutely welcome the work of Endometriosis UK, in particular the employers’ scheme, which we are pleased to see has a high number of participants. Debates such as this will help to fuel more businesses, of all sizes, to join that scheme and share those practices. All that work clearly needs to come under the remit of the women’s health ambassador. I am looking forward to working with that person once appointed.

My right hon. Friend asked about the definition of disability and whether it is included. We have heard the definition: a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that

“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

We have heard examples where that is absolutely the case.

On benefits and how the definition is approached in practice, the work capability assessment determines eligibility for employment and support allowance, and the additional health-related amounts of universal credit. That will indeed be taken into account. It is difficult to have a number of discrete schemes for employers from Government. None the less, big HR departments can take on these things. What we must do is explain to smaller businesses the benefits of tackling these areas.

To conclude, I want to ensure that, through the women’s health strategy, we can get the culture on work and health right. To ensure that the package is as effective as it can be, we need to continue to collaborate. I am looking forward to working with the women’s health ambassador, and I am determined that BEIS should play a full role in driving this agenda forward. I close by thanking everybody for their excellent contributions in this helpful and informative debate.

Space Sector: Leicester Space Park

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings during the debate when not speaking, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidelines, and that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. There will be no opportunity for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Leicester Space Park and the wider space sector.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I am delighted to have secured this important debate on a subject close to my heart, as there is huge potential for space science and technology to create the high-skill, high-quality jobs of the future, boost economic growth, tackle climate change and help keep our country safe. When most people think about space, they think about rockets and astronauts, but the space sector does far more than that. The satellites orbiting the earth and the data they provide keep us connected to family and friends; direct us around villages, towns and cities, underpinning all the apps now associated with GPS; underpin much of our country’s defence and security systems; help us see what is really happening to our environment, monitoring deforestation and changes in our oceans and air pollution; and support farmers to manage their crops. I believe the space sector will revolutionise many more aspects of our lives in the future.

The Minister will know that the global space economy is set to grow from £270 billion to £490 billion by 2030. The UK space sector is already worth more than £16 billion a year and employs more than 45,000 scientists, engineers, designers and manufacturers. Leicester is at the forefront of the space sector in this country and is extremely well poised to lead future development nationally and internationally. The University of Leicester is globally recognised for its space research and has contributed to international space missions for six decades. It has led major discoveries, including the observation of the first ever stellar black hole, and at least one Leicester-built instrument has been operating in space every single year from 1967 to the present day. My constituency is also home to the National Space Centre, which attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists to the city each year and, through its National Space Academy, provides brilliant education to primary, secondary and post-16 students in science, technology, engineering and maths, helping to inspire the scientists and engineers of the future.

Space Park Leicester builds on that proud tradition, bringing together our world-leading university research with industry in state-of-the-art, high-tech facilities. Its aim is to create 2,500 high-skill, high-paid jobs and generate £750 million for the east midlands economy, making a significant contribution to the high-productivity economic growth that is essential outside London and the south-east if we are ever going to level up. There are three stages to the space park’s development. Stage 1, which was completed in the summer, brought together academics from the university with world-leading centres of research, such as the National Centre for Earth Observation, and global multinationals, such as Airbus, Rolls Royce, Thales Alenia Space and AST SpaceMobile. Stage 2—I visited last week—has built state-of-the-art robot and AI-assisted laboratory facilities to research, develop and design low-cost satellite production. Stage 3 will see the manufacturing and production of those low-cost satellites.

Currently, satellites are extremely expensive and take a long time to build. Manufacturing satellites more quickly and at a lower cost is absolutely critical to the future of space science and the space sector, and predicted to increase sixfold over the next decade. My message to the Minister is that Space Park Leicester is very well placed to lead growth in the UK, and across the world, in low-cost satellite production, if we act quickly enough.

The space park is part of a much wider development and regeneration of my constituency. Leicester City Council has led the development of Pioneer Park, next to the space park, which is a hub for high-tech, knowledge-based businesses, which will enable start-ups to develop and turn into viable companies. It includes companies such as EarthSense, which provides air quality monitoring services to local authorities and public health organisations around the world.

The company was spun out of the university’s research, started trading in 2016 and now employs 30 people; it has just taken an entire floor of the new space park, in the expectation that it will grow even further in future. I know hon. Members and people watching are really concerned about the quality of their air, and there are much wider applications for these services in the future. I welcome the £20 million that the council has secured from the Government’s levelling-up fund to expand Pioneer Park and help us to attract even more high-tech businesses to the city.

Underpinning all those developments, and a passion of mine from the start, is a serious commitment to ensuring that children and young people from Leicester and the wider east midlands have the skills they need to benefit from the jobs the space park is creating. That is absolutely critical to people in Leicester West, too many of whom struggle in insecure, low-skilled, low-paid work.

Ensuring the space sector and the workforce become more inclusive and representative of the communities they serve is vital too. Women, black and minority ethnic groups and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are seriously under-represented in science, technology, engineering and manufacturing. That is why I was thrilled to see Dr Suzie Imber running some brilliant sessions with children from two primary schools in Leicester West, Inglehurst and Queensmead Academy, when I visited the space park on Friday. Suzie is the associate professor in space physics at Leicester University. She was also the winner of the 2017 BBC2 series, “Astronauts, Do You Have What It Takes?” She definitely has what it takes to inspire children to take an interest in physics and science. They were hooked on her every word. They loved all the experiments, especially launching their home rockets. I am not going to lie—I had a brilliant time too.

There is even more that we can and must do to deliver the potential of Space Park Leicester and the wider space sector as a whole. Most importantly, we need a long-term commitment from the Government to support and invest in Space Park Leicester. As the Minister will know, we have already made great strides, but it takes time to conduct research, develop ideas, nurture them and turn them into viable and thriving businesses.

I am sure the Minister will agree that much of what we are doing in Leicester aligns with the four key objectives of the Government’s national space strategy, which was published earlier this year. Unlocking growth in the space sector is what we are doing. Growing the UK as a science and technology superpower—we are making a huge contribution there. We are collaborating internationally and developing resilient space capability and services.

I hope the Minister will tell me how the Government will support Space Park Leicester in its future ambitions, especially the development of low-cost satellite manufacturing, an area where I believe the UK can be a global leader if we act swiftly and decisively enough. Can he also tell me how the Government will support Leicester to develop the skills and training that are central to the national space strategy, including higher level vocational qualifications? Ultimately, our people are our best asset. Making sure that people from all backgrounds have the skills they need to secure and create the jobs of the future is integral to boosting economic growth. The east midlands needs support in this area if we are to be part of helping our country grow into the future.

Finally, I invite the Minister to visit Leicester and see, at first hand, the difference that Space Park Leicester is already making, and its potential to lead change in future. It is a positive, aspirational, inspirational programme, and so I urge the Minister to agree.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Very briefly, I call Jamie Stone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

First, I would like to clarify our current position: we have prioritised helping the greatest number of people as quickly as possible, and in order to target that support at those most in need, the Government have chosen to cap the self-employment income support scheme. Those who are not able to access the scheme may be able to access other wide-ranging measures that the Government are providing, which are designed to support businesses across all sectors during these difficult times. I am very happy for my hon. Friend to engage with the Department and me on the issue.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on providing financial support for workers ineligible for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on providing financial support for workers ineligible for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

My Department is working closely with the Treasury on the coronavirus job retention scheme and the wider Government response. In developing the scheme, the Government have prioritised helping the greatest number of people as quickly as possible.

[Hannah Bardell [V]]

While the additional flexibility is welcome, the job retention scheme does nothing for those outside its arbitrary limits, such as my Livingston constituent, stonemason Jason Hoffman, who has a small limited business and makes up a modest salary with legal and tax-efficient annual dividends. Jason does not qualify for the scheme, is not eligible for universal credit and cannot furlough himself because he could not bid for work and his business would collapse. How many small businesses like Jason’s will be destroyed before this Conservative Government finally listen and include them in the scheme? What comfort can the Minister give to my constituent today?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

As I said, we have tried to prioritise helping the greatest number of people as quickly as possible. To make sure that other people can be helped, including those who are self-employed, a scheme for them is also available. We have tried to do as much as we can through grants, as well as through local government, including £617 million in discretionary grants for businesses that may not be registered for business rates, which can get the additional help that was announced in the past 48 hours.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Many of the projects that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned were being funded entirely by Government subsidies. The Government have no money of their own; the money that they have is other people’s money. Someone has to pay—either the taxpayers and consumers who have already borne many of the policy costs, or private sector shareholders. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the importance of certainty, and policies that will stand the test of political time, such as those that we have set out now in the clean growth strategy, will secure that investment certainty. The good news is that the world is moving rapidly away from high-carbon investments, and investors are looking for opportunities that we are able to offer.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

We salute 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the school climate strikers and Extinction Rebellion. They have shone a light on the issue of the issue of climate change in a way that it seems only David Attenborough is able to equal. Surely the Minister recognises that her Government must do more. Perhaps they could follow the lead of the SNP Scottish Government, with their world-leading climate change targets, and perhaps—as was suggested by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley)—they could follow our example of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on these issues, because they are clearly well ahead of some of the dinosaurs in this place.

[Claire Perry]

I do not see too many dinosaurs in the building today. However, I pay tribute to both the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government, who have worked incredibly well on these issues. We share one goal, we share one set of climate budgets, and we share one set of, largely, taxpayer receipts which have paid for much of this investment. We must continue to work together, and we must look for points at which we can come together rather than looking for those at which we can diverge, which I am afraid the hon. Lady’s party often wants to do.

Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I can answer her questions. We consulted with more than 6,000 business, which are quite important in this legislation as they have to understand and implement it, and are ultimately responsible for placing safe products in the marketplace. It was therefore vital that we could confirm that with stakeholders. I can reassure the hon. Lady that organisations such as Which? were invited to our reading rooms and fed into the process, and that consumer groups were given the same amount of access to the draft SI.

I appreciate that there are concerns about the impact of such a significant instrument on business. Despite being de minimis, we have completed and published a full impact assessment given the importance of this SI and in the interests of transparency. During development of it, we have been mindful of the impact on business of the changes to processes as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU. Where possible, we have made specific arrangements, including an 18-month transitional period for importers regarding labelling and a 90-day transition period for notifying a new UK database of cosmetic ingredients. Businesses have welcomed that.

Having touched on process, I move on to addressing some more detailed points about the substance of the regulations, given the issues that cut across many of the individual schedules. The regulations provide for continued recognition of goods assessed against EU regulatory requirements, including continued acceptance of products lawfully carrying the CE marking and of product certifications carried out by EU recognised bodies. This means that products that meet EU requirements in these areas can still be placed on the UK market after exit. In the event the UK leaves the EU without a deal, this is intended to be for a time-limited period and will help minimise disruption to the public and business in the event of no deal. At the same time, the regulations establish an equivalent UK framework to ensure that the legislation functions domestically once we leave.

I will now turn in more detail towards some of the further elements of the framework, including the new UKCA marking and the establishment of UK approved bodies.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

On the point about CE marking, I knocked a door in my local area at the weekend, in Livingston, and was met with a chap who worked for a mechanical engineering company. He was particularly concerned about this and asked how, despite the fact that the UK may want to have its own regulations, we will keep up with the EU and what impact that will have on businesses. Can the Minister tell us about what impact assessment she has done on that?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, particularly regarding CE marks, which I shall go on to discuss. I want to reassure her that part of developing this UK framework and having it all in the one place is to ensure that, in a no-deal scenario, we can improve and keep in step with any improvements in regulations. In fact, when scientific evidence suggests that we can make a change, powers that previously referred to the European Commission are given to the Secretary of State. In some respects, the SI gives us more flexibility to make those changes.

From my past knowledge, I can tell the Committee that we were part of the formulation of some of the regulations, particularly as regards some the areas covered and some of the technical and particular product requirements, when they were considered by the European Union. I am therefore confident that, with our focus on product safety and the development of requirements, that we in the UK will continue to operate as we always have done in this area.

The UKCA marking will cover most goods subjected to CE marking. Whereas the CE marking indicates compliance with EU rules, the UKCA marking will indicate compliance with UK rules. Products lawfully made and assessed against EU regulatory requirements, including those with CE markings affixed, will continue to be accepted on the UK market. The vast majority of businesses will therefore be able to continue applying the CE marking as they do now, and they will not need to use the new UKCA marking.

It is legally necessary to create the new UK marking as part of a domestic legal framework so that products can still be assessed by UK-based conformity assessment bodies, which will no longer be recognised as meeting the requirements of the EU legislation in a no-deal scenario, meaning that manufacturers using them will no longer be able to affix a CE marking to products.

There is a requirement that some of the products covered by the legislation should be assessed by third-party organisations, called conformity assessment bodies, before the product can be placed on the market. For most of the products within the scope of this legislation, the conformity assessment bodies are usually called “a notified body”, and they play a valuable role in ensuring products available to businesses and the public are safe, and are produced according to a legal framework.

The EU has made it clear that in the event of a no-deal exit, it would no longer recognise work carried out by UK-notified bodies to assess products for sale on the EU27 market. That is why we are putting in place a UK framework that will allow UK bodies to continue to assess products. This benefits not only the bodies themselves but also their customers, who might not be seeking to export to the EU and would prefer to continue to have their products assessed by a body established in the UK. Therefore, for areas within the scope of the legislation, UK-based notified bodies will automatically be given new status as UK-approved bodies. Products successfully assessed by these bodies will then be marked with the UKCA marking before being placed on the UK market.

A further common element of the product legislation covered by this SI is the use of authorised representatives, commonly known as ARs. These are natural or legal persons established in the European economic area who can be appointed by a manufacturer of a product to carry out certain tasks on their behalf. The regulations provide for the ongoing recognition of existing ARs in the EEA, however any new AR appointed after exit day will need to be based in the UK.

For cosmetic products, a different approach is being taken because of the risk they pose to human health. Responsible persons playing a key role in ensuring the safety of cosmetic products on the market will be required to be based in the UK rather than the EEA from the point of exit.

To conclude, the regulations establish a domestic product safety framework in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. They are making only the changes to the framework that are needed to ensure the UK’s product safety and metrology system functions effectively and to the same high standard after exit; otherwise they maintain and secure the current system in domestic legislation. As hon. Members will recognise, it is essential that the UK has a functioning product safety framework in place in the event of a no-deal to prevent a flood of unsafe and non-compliant products into the UK market. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank both Front Benchers for the way in which they set out the points they made, and the SNP spokesman for his contribution.

I am deeply concerned about this SI. Apart from the fact that it is as thick as a brick and weighs probably more than that, I find it difficult to conceive that anybody who might be affected by it could understand the meaning of it by reading it. It simply is not possible.

Let me give the Minister an example of what I mean: if we turn to schedule 26, which is on page 318 and is something I have picked out at random, it sets out the amendments to the Non-automatic Weighing Instruments Regulations 2016. The schedule goes on to set out what the amendments to those regulations are, but needless to say, the regulations that are being amended are in a different document that, by the way, is not in the room. If I wanted to assure myself that the measures in the SI were doing what they purported to do, it would be difficult for me to do so, because I do not even have the document that is being amended present in the Committee Room.

I know we now have the wonders of the internet, but when I was a Minister it was the practice always to have present in the Committee Room all those documents—primary legislation and statutory instruments—that were being amended, so that if somebody sitting in the Committee wished to consider whether a particular clause was doing what the Minister, in all good faith, said it was doing, they could check that. It is impossible today for us to do that.

It is impossible—and it will be impossible should this instrument pass—for anybody picking it up and reading it to understand, without having a whole library of legislation, what on earth the provisions are doing and whether what they purport to do is what they do do, or whether, because the civil service is so hard-pressed these days from having to produce these documents, there has been some technical error in the drafting. That is a problem that I have referred to in other SI Committees. Not having the documents that are being amended in the room is a problem.

I turn now to the fact that this is the Tyrannosaurus rex of SIs, or the Giganotosaurus—one of those enormous dinosaurs that got really, really large—and the impact assessment tells me in annex A that 38 pieces of legislation are subject to amendment by this SI. Some of them are extremely important bits of legislation in terms of public and consumer safety. They are also extremely varied, from the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 through to specific regulations such as those on toy safety, the making available on the market and supervision of transfers of explosives, aerosol dispensers, gas appliances, cosmetics and cosmetic products, intoxicating liquor, consumer protection more generally, weights and measures, and all kinds of things. I could read out all 38 pieces of legislation, but that would detain the Committee for too long. However, that is an illustration of the problem.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful and appropriate point. Those 38 measures include ones on offshore installations: the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 and the Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015. What business do those have being in a document with cosmetics? That is not to diminish the importance of regulations about cosmetics, but those on offshore installations are vital and should have had specific time dedicated to them. Is not the reality that we are in such a rush and a dash to do something that might never even need to be used that such things are being rushed through without proper scrutiny?

[Maria Eagle]

I cannot but agree with the hon. Lady. The scope and range of the legislation subject to amendment by this one SI are extensive and startling. Many of those pieces of legislation do not have obvious connections to others being amended by the same instrument.

I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough about the assessment of the costs of implementation. I bear in mind the fact that the Minister has said, in total good faith I am sure, that the aim of the draft regulations is to keep things as they are in the envisaged circumstances of no deal. I do not suggest for a minute that there is any bad faith in any of this, but it is impossible for us to consider properly whether what the Minister seeks to ensure happens will actually happen. The extent and size of the regulations, and the way in which the legislation is written, with the powers that Ministers have given themselves to change legislation, is impossible to scrutinise properly.

In answer to my intervention, the Minister told us about stakeholder reading rooms and the 6,000 businesses involved. That sounds like a lot until one turns to page 21 of the impact assessment: the number of manufacturing industries covered by specific product safety regulations amounts to 24,255. Just over the page, in table A1.2, we see that other manufacturing industries producing consumer products amount to 38,614. The wholesale industries affected consist of some thousands more and the retail industries affected consist of very many thousands more businesses.

I also note that paragraph 87, on page 17 of the impact assessment, states:

“Based on data from the ONS…around 95% of manufacturing businesses and over 96% of distributors in the industries affected by the SI are small or micro businesses.”

Those are exactly the kinds of businesses that simply do not have the time or capacity—if they are to stay in business—to buy this statutory instrument; to look in it to cross-reference it to the EU directives, other statutory instruments and primary legislation that it amends; to understand and interpret the legal language, of which there is a lot; and therefore to understand what their obligations are.

I, too, will vote against the draft regulations because they are too large a piece of legislation, with too wide a scope to enable those of us scrutinising it in Committee the appropriate opportunity to do so properly. Not only that, but even after the SI passes, it will be almost impossible for anybody who is bound by an element of it to pick it up and understand what on earth it is that they are bound by.

The Minister says that the SI is not intended to make any changes, but changes may have been made, even inadvertently, through the language it uses. We have been unable to check that; I certainly could not check that in Committee today, in respect of even one of the pieces of legislation it amends, never mind 38 of them. It is an exceedingly bad way of making law, it is to be deplored, and I will not be supporting it.

Brexit, Science and Innovation

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

Was I right in hearing that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, an amazing place, which I visited in my role as Chair? It undertakes incredible work in a previously deprived part of Liverpool and demonstrates that investment in science in some of the poorer regions of our country is vital. He makes an important point and, like the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, he pre-empts what I will say on this subject.

As a result of issues such as the one the hon. Gentleman raises, we decided specifically to explore the issue of immigration rules and what will be needed to ensure that the UK can maintain its pre-eminent position. Again, I do not think that this should be in any way controversial, for either Brexiteers or remainers; those who favoured Brexit were simply arguing that they wanted control of immigration rules, not that we should exclude the brightest and best people from our country. So for our report “An immigration system that works for science and innovation”, the second cited in today’s motion, the Committee asked the science community to work quickly to set out what it wanted to see in an immigration system. We are particularly grateful to the Wellcome Trust for hosting a workshop so that we could develop some concrete proposals. I hope that they will be of use to the Government as they seek to navigate their way through to their future position for this country.

Our proposals were designed to tackle the rapidly approaching problem of what to do about European economic area immigration when the transition period ends. We were warned that the worst thing to do after Brexit would be to roll EEA countries into our existing rest-of-the- world system, as that was seen as too restrictive and so would not facilitate the free flow of people to carry out research in our country. But in the future, if our proposals relating to EEA countries are accepted, we saw that there would be advantages to rolling out our proposals beyond the EEA, so that there is a single immigration system that works for science and innovation, and that attracts great people from wherever they are around the world to come to work in this country.

Our proposals for a new immigration system that works for science and innovation are based on several principles. We must bear in mind that this is important not just for academia, but for industry, and it is therefore crucial for our economy, too. Let me set out those principles. The first is that we need to be able to attract individuals who have different types and levels of skill, and who are at different career stages, as well as their dependants. That means going beyond the “brightest and the best” whom the Government refer to so that we can attract and retain people such as the technicians, who are so crucial to undertaking research; they may be part of a team we are seeking to recruit from overseas. Secondly, we need to be able to attract and recruit highly skilled people, wherever they are from, without being subject to an annual limit.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this important report before the House. Does he agree that we are already seeing challenges—I have certainly seen them in my constituency—relating to technical staff and the thresholds in the immigration system as it stands, which are putting people off coming to the UK to work or have already caused them to leave? The UK Government will have to be very bold and imaginative and to embrace fully these proposals if we are to retain and attract staff in the future.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I agree with what she says. It should be in everyone’s interests that we facilitate bringing bright and great people to our country, whatever level they are at, because that benefits our economy, employment, our ability to fund our public services and so on. Those who come here need to be able to travel outside the UK for research purposes without it harming that individual’s ability to apply for indefinite leave to remain. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) was very persistent in pursuing that point during our inquiry. If spending time abroad on field trips and collaborating with others is part of someone’s research, they should not be penalised if they decide they want to make this country their home for the longer term.

The system also has to be efficient, and streamlined, with a low-cost application process for employees and employers. We currently have some of the highest visa fees in the world, which can be off-putting and burdensome. The cost of a tier 2 visa for a researcher, their spouse and three children will rise this month to £21,000, a fee that is way beyond what many people involved in research can pay. We argued in our report that the Home Office should not just use salary as a proxy for skill —that point was made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is a sad truth that some high-skilled jobs in research are relatively poorly paid, and the system needs to recognise that. This country should not do itself harm by denying those people the ability to come here and thereby benefit our economy.

The specifics of our proposals fell into two parts: for short-term migration to the UK, we proposed that the Government establish visa-free and permit-free work in the UK for up to 180 days for skilled workers. Eligibility should be verified at the border with proof of intent to leave within that period, and a letter from the employer describing the nature of the skilled work. For long-term migration, we outlined a five-year skilled work permit for those with either an offer of employment—with a minimum salary that reflects the going rate for the job, as well as regional and public or private sector differences in salary—or third-party sponsorship, such as from a university.

There are precedents for these approaches, both at home and abroad. For short-term migration, we currently allow visitors from Canada and the USA to visit the UK to do academic research, attend conferences and undertake training for up to six months without a visa. In the US, the ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—visa-waiver programme allows entry for business or tourism for up to 90 days. For longer-term migration, the French have a “talent passport” model, which includes a scientist category under which researchers who have a hosting agreement and the equivalent of a master’s degree or above can apply for a visa for up to four years, with family members also able to apply for residence permits and to work.

A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust analysed the visa systems of 22 countries and found that half of them have a dedicated immigration route or provision for researchers. Other countries do it to support science and research; we can do it as well. There is no reason why we cannot. We suggest that the Government would need to undertake further work with the science and technology community to co-create a system at the detailed level, but our proposals show the way forward. The Committee and the community have worked hard to be constructive and proactive on this issue, and those are the qualities that I expect to see in the Government response, when it arrives.

During our inquiry, we also uncovered opportunities for the Government to make changes now, unilaterally, to improve the current non-EEA immigration system while negotiations with the EU are ongoing. We saw a need to revise and clarify the criteria for tier 1 exceptional talent visas, which currently have low take-up. Some 2,000 visas are available each year, but there are currently only around 400 applications, which is way short of the potential capacity. Many believe that that part of the system is not working because the exceptional-talent criteria are too restrictive.

We called on the Government to reinstate the tier 1 post-study work visas, so that talented international graduates who have chosen to study at a UK higher education institution are able to contribute further to the UK economy by working here for up to two years. Our call has been supported this week by Universities UK, and a ComRes poll found that 72% of people think that international students should be able to stay to work for a year or more after graduation, with 52% in support of their being able to stay for two years or more.

Finally, we recommended that the Government remove the cap on tier 2 general visas. They have removed the cap for doctors and nurses, which frees up space for engineers and other professionals, but why should there be an arbitrary limit on skilled workers more generally? Surely it makes sense to encourage them to come to this country.

The Government’s response to our second report is due later this month, but I hope we will get a flavour of what to expect from the Minister’s response today. I hope that he will recognise the urgency of the need to arrange new immigration rules. The planned transition period gives us some time to develop an immigration system, but universities have said that they need two years’ notice of changes to immigration processes so that the prospective staff and students can prepare properly. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an update on agreeing an accord on science and innovation, which has been discussed for many months now.

Many other related issues are not covered in detail in the two reports, but I suspect that Members will wish to raise them in the debate. Examples include the Government’s decision to ask pharmaceutical companies to stockpile medicines as preparation for no deal; the future regulation of medicines when the European Medicines Agency moves from London to Amsterdam; and concerns about Euratom in respect of nuclear research and the availability of medical radioisotopes, which are essential tools for diagnostic tests and the treatment of cancer and other diseases.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry to have tried your patience—I hope that, as a result of both reports and today’s debate, the Government will work to secure the accord on science and innovation as quickly as possible, and include information on how they expect the people element to work for highly skilled workers. It is crucial that we do all we can to maintain the UK’s pre-eminent position as a science and innovation superpower. It is in everyone’s interest. Moreover, provisions need to be made to protect science in the event of a no-deal scenario. I would like to hear what action the Minister has taken on that, as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this important debate, and the rest of the Science and Technology Committee on their hard work on this issue.

It is only right that we closely examine what effects Brexit will have on all sectors and industries in our economy, and the Committees of this place are well placed to do that. I voted remain in the referendum, but in Scotland we know all too well the importance of referendums and how we must respect the results and the will of the entire electorate. Despite what our views may have been in the past, we must now all look forward to a United Kingdom trading on the global stage, yet one that still works closely with our friends and allies on the continent and across the border in the Republic of Ireland. The world of science and innovation is no different. We should not shut out academics and innovators from rest of the world, nor should we shut off those from inside the EU after we leave.

[Hannah Bardell]

I have great respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, who comes to this House with experience from what is, in my view, the greatest Parliament in the UK—the Scottish Parliament. Does he agree with me on the matter of referendums, given the detail that is now coming out about the impact of Brexit? It would have been very helpful if his party and the Government could have given us and people across the UK more detail—the kind of detail that we now have—because his dream and mine of a remain vote may then have come true, instead of the mess that we now find ourselves in.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. Indeed, Scotland does have two Parliaments and two Governments. I have experience of both Parliaments, and I would argue that both have their merits. We had a very good debate before the referendum in which both sides set out their case very clearly. It is arguably clear that during the 2014 independence referendum campaign in Scotland, the Scottish Government, the Scottish National party and the yes campaign did not put forward quite the full analysis that they should have.

It goes without saying that Scotland was, and continues to be, a proud nation of innovators and scientists, from the invention of the world-changing telephone by Alexander Graham Bell to the discoveries by Peter Higgs at the University of Edinburgh. Indeed, this innovation continues today in my constituency in the Scottish borders, where Plexus in Kelso is building some of the most cutting-edge machines in the healthcare, communications and computing industries and selling them right across the world.

Just last week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury visited Galashiels, where we heard from business leaders how they are taking advantage of innovations in FinTech that are being pioneered here in the UK. I look forward to such innovation post Brexit too, especially with the support of the Conservative Government, under whom we have already seen the largest increase in scientific research and development funding since 1979, meaning an additional £7 billion of investment by 2022. Just today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a £16 million funding boost to the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow to help develop quantum technology.

There is also the very welcome industrial strategy, which will focus our economy on becoming one of the most innovative in the world. That is not just good for our economy and our global science ambitions but will mean greener, healthier and cheaper housing for hard-working families. Improved healthcare technology will ensure that treatments on the NHS are world-leading and, most importantly, delivering for patients. The Government’s commitment to growth throughout our regions and nations is also clear to see. The spaceport in Sutherland in the north of Scotland is perhaps the most tangible example of our global and, indeed, universal ambitions in science and innovation.

As the Committee’s report highlights, to continue being at the forefront of science and innovation, the United Kingdom will still need to attract not only the brightest and the best but also the essential technicians and lab assistants, and many other roles that our universities and private sector businesses rely on. That is not an issue solely for the science and innovation sector, as many industries have the same concern. However, I do not agree that there will suddenly be no foreign workers the day we leave the European Union. There is a world outside and beyond the European Union desperate to engage with a new global Britain. That is already clear to see, with recent immigration figures showing that the highest net migration into the United Kingdom from non-EU countries since 2011 has just taken place. As the Committee reported:

“UK science is entering the Brexit process from a strong starting position.”

We are home to some of the most envied university institutions in the world. To say that suddenly the EU would not want access to that fantastic resource for their young, ambitious scientists is just not sustainable. I can understand the concerns that various organisations have when our country is going through such a substantial change, but plenty of our universities pioneered many ground-breaking innovations and discoveries long before the concept of free movement in the European Union was developed, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so long after.

Brexit will change things; we all know that. There will be challenges; we also know that. But as we see one of the biggest changes in the governance of our country in recent times, we must grasp the opportunities that Brexit will bring. A chance to make deeper and lasting relationships with countries around the world, and not only in Europe, will see our universities, science and innovation flourish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I will be comparatively brief. I speak as a former member of the Science and Technology Committee—first under Nicola Blackwood, the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and then under my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). I even had the temerity to run for the chairmanship of the Committee, but the less said about that the better.

What struck me time and again during my years on the Select Committee was that science is hugely collaborative and international. Horizon 2020, which is now Horizon Europe, is a hugely important part of that, but we should not have this debate imagining that it is by any means the only part. One of the most fascinating visits the Select Committee went on was to DeepMind, a private business that was started in Britain and then bought by an American company in the form of Google. We should not pretend that this conversation is happening solely in the context of funding from the European Union, or solely in the context of us as a net beneficiary of scientific funding when we are actually a net contributor to the EU.

I urge the Government and colleagues to look at this in the round. When we went to see DeepMind and other companies, it was very clear that immigration is a hugely important factor, but it is by no means the only factor. The question of what the Government can do to encourage more people to work in science and in business that relies on science goes far beyond the conversations we are having about Brexit. I do not want to harp on solely about DeepMind, but what did we hear at such private companies? What we heard was as much about regulation, insurance when it comes to driverless cars and a whole host of things on which the Government will have greater freedom to act when we leave the European Union.

There are opportunities that I urge the Government to seize in relation to this issue, but there are of course challenges as well. I welcome the fact that the Government have made some very encouraging noises on scientific funding—not just post the referendum, but in every previous Budget while I have been lucky enough to be a Member of this House. This Government have consistently backed science and innovation, and I hope we will continue to do so.

The industrial strategy demonstrates a much greater commitment to such an agenda than we have seen for many years. I welcome that, but I would caution the Government not to be too prescriptive. This is about allowing businesses and universities to empower themselves, rather than about picking winners. I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has never sought to pick winners, but I suggest that that is something we should always guard against. In my constituency, we need greater innovation in agri-tech, which is also driven by business, and our own regional industrial strategy will deliver a huge amount of that.

What are the continuing barriers to working in science and to driving forward scientific innovation? It is as much the constant reliance on soft money that stops people coming to and getting work in our universities as anything else. Those are the systemic issues in science and innovation that we can tackle regardless of our decision to leave the European Union. Immigration is of course one of the single most important issues in relation to recruiting to universities and within the scientific community.

I welcome both of the reports that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), talked about. As a deregulating Conservative, I wonder whether we could simplify even some of the suggestions in those reports. My own constituency voted more than any other to leave the European Union and free movement was a huge part of that, but I think many people might ask whether we could not look at something as simple as free movement for people with a PhD or something as straightforward as that. I am not by any means the first person to suggest it. That would allow us to send a very clear signal in contrast to some of the very unfortunate and inaccurate characterisations of the Brexit vote. There are legitimate worries in the scientific community around the world about whether Britain is the open and eager-to-collaborate landscape that it has been for many decades. I wonder whether we can do simpler things and be more attractive to the international scientific community even than the suggestions made in the Select Committee reports.

The most important thing in all that is to emphasise that this should not be a discussion about whether we are open to collaboration with the European Union or open for business. This must be a discussion about whether we are open to global collaboration that leads to future growth in our science and innovation sector. That is because science and innovation does not recognise the boundaries of the European Union or those of Britain; it is genuinely a global industry. We must do all we can to get across those borders and to meet those challenges.

We must have in mind what individual technology companies can be encouraged to do that will also be in our national interest. It worries me that Google has made a decision to avoid any contact with our military establishments, because some of the greatest innovations have come out of our military establishments and those of America. It is important that we recognise no barriers internationally, and that we recognise all the opportunities that come from working across sectors that have not previously thought of themselves as technology sectors. Thinking of my own county of Lincolnshire, the Air Force will need more computer programmers than ever before. If companies such as Google are disinclined to work with the Air Force, that will be a sorry state of affairs, although I am slightly simplifying the approach Google has taken.

These are the barrier-less worlds in which we must now live, and it is important to consider not just how the Minister sees this, but how he interacts with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, and of course in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and elsewhere. I hope we can use the opportunity of leaving the European Union to see what we can do in a freer and different regulatory world.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is talking of his concerns about such risks. In my constituency, I have a life sciences company called Hologic, which has just told me that it is on the verge of losing a major contract because of the threat in relation to reciprocal agreements and the regulatory framework for batch releases. It is very concerned about job losses and about losing contracts. Does he recognise that, for many companies in my constituency, such as Hologic, not knowing means that, in their words, the game is potentially a bogey?

[Matt Warman]

I agree that uncertainty is the enemy of any business, whether it is a technology business or something else. That is why we should welcome the release of all the documents—no-deal documents or anything else—that the Government have been producing to try to provide as much certainty as they possibly can. I appreciate, however, that until there is a done deal, many businesses will take the cautious approach that the hon. Lady describes, and we must do everything we can to avoid that.

In closing, I return to the point that I made at the beginning. As many other speakers have said, this is a global industry in which Britain punches well above its weight. By seeking to look beyond the regulatory constraints that have been imposed by the European Union, as well as by looking beyond our borders and encouraging collaboration through the industrial strategy and the good work of the Minister, we can, I hope, not only preserve the brilliant position we are currently in, but enhance it. We can do that with some of the very sensible measures that the Select Committee has proposed in its reports, and we can even go further. In a debate on science and innovation, I hope that the Minister will be keen to embrace as many innovative suggestions as he possibly can.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have worked with the Science and Technology Committee on this report, and to speak in this debate. Science and research drives innovation, and if we in Britain want to remain the world-leading, cutting-edge economy that we are today, we must continue to support it. As many have said, science and research helps to find solutions to some of the world’s greatest challenges, such as climate change, health issues, and changing demographics. We are a world leader. We have less than 1% of the world’s population but, as was said by my excellent Essex neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), we contribute more than 15% of the world’s most cited research publications.

Increasingly, science is not just done by one person acting alone; co-operation and collaboration is important. Those of us who listened to the “Today” programme this morning will have heard about Jocelyn Bell Burnell who, as a postgraduate back in 1967, discovered radio pulsars. Her bosses got the Nobel prize; she did not. Today she has been awarded a $3 million prize, which she has said she will use to set up a fund for women studying physics—thank you! The point made on “Today” was that more diverse science partnerships are more robust and more successful. That goes for supporting women in science, but also for supporting co-operation and collaboration, and especially cross-border co-operation.

I thank the Government for the positive approach that they have taken to science. I am proud that more money is going into science and research under this Government than under any other Government for the past 40 years. The vast majority of public sector money that goes into science—about £6 billion per annum—goes through UK Research and Innovation, but about £1 billion comes from EU funding. In science, not only cash but collaboration matters, and it is important to ensure that scientists based in the UK can continue to collaborate easily with those in other countries. I know the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in this issue because I was lucky enough to meet her within a few weeks of her taking up her role. I raised the concerns of scientists and their networks, and the Government and the Treasury were quick to issue a guarantee that anyone who already receives Horizon 2020 funds will continue to do so.

I must declare an interest because in my previous role as an MEP I was involved in negotiating the terms of Horizon 2020—I think I was the only British negotiator in the room—and I saw how the eighth framework for science and research was particularly helpful in areas such as the European Research Council, Clean Sky and the Innovative Medicines initiative, as well as for some of the infrastructures, nuclear fusion and the amazing work that goes on in bioinformatics. It is important that we keep those innovative partnerships going forward, and the Government’s White Paper contains strong statements about our need and desire to continue to have an association with all those projects.

A lot of the recommendations that the Science and Technology Committee made in March were picked up in the White Paper in July, but of course there were questions about the detail, and whether we will take part in the next project. The Committee’s report claims that the Government have not given a clear enough statement, and that they should say that they intend to participate, but that if the price is too high or the focus diluted, a change to that approach might be appropriate. That is exactly what the Government are now doing, and the Minister was in Brussels earlier this week, meeting MEPs who are considering potential amendments to the framework programme 9 and Horizon Europe. If some of those amendments are accepted, they could dilute the level of research money that goes into excellence, and might make the programme less good value for money than it currently is. That was a concern of the Committee, but I suggest to the Chair that the Government are intending to support exactly those recommendations that were made in March.

If the framework 9 programme turns out not to be 100% as Britain would like, I would urge the Government to participate anyway. If it is massively different, of course we should look at funding through our own projects, but if it is slightly different, perhaps we should err on the side of caution. We know that if we pull out of the next framework—framework 9—with what would now be quite a short period of notice, that could be disruptive. Therefore, provided that the changes are not too significant, I suggest we err on the side of caution. That is, of course, different from other decisions that we make about our future relationship with Europe, because this decision will affect the next seven years and is not a decision in perpetuity in the way that other elements of our future partnership could be. If the Government are entering the seven-year programme but are not completely convinced about how it may look in its later years, perhaps they should include a break clause at a mid-term point.

Another recommendation in the Committee’s report was about the importance of staying in parts of networks, particularly clinical trials. In some areas—rare cancers, for example—we cannot do the research ourselves, and we need to be part of international clinical trials networks. That recommendation was made in March, and on the day the Government’s White Paper on Brexit was published I sat down with researchers involved in cross-border clinical trials, and they reassured me that the document picked up on all they needed. Provided that the negotiations go through with Brussels, that issue should be covered.

On the visa system, it is incredibly important that individuals in science can continue to work with others. As part of our research, the Committee went across the river to St Thomas’ Hospital and met the British Heart Foundation. World-leading research is happening at that hospital, and more than 60% of the researchers doing heart research, funded by the BHF in the UK are from other countries, including a large number from the EU.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady’s point about visas and immigration is vital, as are the support staff in science and innovation. I am reminded of the story about John F Kennedy going to NASA in 1962, meeting a janitor with a broom and asking, “What are you doing?” The janitor responded, “I’m helping to put a man on the moon”—and hopefully, eventually, then a woman. Does the hon. Lady agree that in reality we need staff with different types of skills, not just the brightest and the best, and that it is important to recognise that in the language used and in our policies?

[Vicky Ford]

I agree that the whole team is important, but it is also important that we invest in training for some of those support staff. In the past, previous Governments have perhaps not invested enough in ensuring that we can provide technological backup and support—lab assistance and so on—but over the past few years there has been a huge amount more investment in that in the UK, especially in the geographic areas where those jobs tend to exist. Having the team move is important as well because, as we saw at St Thomas’, one lead brings the other.

During its work, the Committee heard about good practice in other parts of the EU, and leaving the EU will give us an opportunity to look at good practice in other parts of the world. We were also told by several experts that the UK Government had done some very helpful things, such as unlocking tier 2 visas and Rutherford fellowships, for example. We must make sure, however, that when we bring in a new visa system we do not lose the good easy movement we already have within the EU. We must continue that together.

To conclude, this report is an excellent report and the strategy the Government are putting in place today is entirely in line with its conclusions and recommendations. The negotiations in Brussels are key to our science and research, and that is key to our future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady mentions the Strength in Places fund—it is actually a big part of our industrial strategy—which is designed to ensure that research and development does not just benefit the so-called golden triangle, but benefits all parts of the UK in terms of jobs and growth.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Even though telecoms are reserved to Westminster, the UK Government are contributing just £21 million to the Scottish Government’s programme to provide superfast broadband to everyone in Scotland. What representations will the Minister therefore make to the Chancellor about matching the Scottish Government’s whopping £600 million contribution?

[Mr Gyimah]

It is for the Scottish Government to make their own budget representations, but as we have always said, we are committed to the roll-out of superfast broadband across the UK. Some 95% of the country has superfast broadband, thanks to the work of this Government.